Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[guanophore]

It is one thing to show, through the scriptures, that the Apostles believed something and further explain what they believed. It is another to come up with a new teaching and proclaim in part of what the apostles taught.

I understand this. It is difficult for those who have only received the Scriptures to accept aspects of Apostolic teaching that are not very clear in their pages. Sometimes I am disappointed that Scripture is not a fuller compendium of the faith, but it was never intended for that purpose. Jesus established the Church to be the pillar and ground of the Truth.

But you are wrong about “new teachings”. Sacred Tradition was closed when the public revelation was completed. Nothing can be added or subtracted. It may seem “new” to you because you do not know much about your own family history.

Basically when we non-Catholics ask “how do you know the apostles taught that”? the answer we get is “because we say so”.

LOL such an answer would not be very convincing for me also. On the contrary, what brought me to return to the faith into which I was baptized was the historical theology class I took at a Protestant seminary. I realized that the early Church was Catholic.

I believe what they taught orally was consistent with what they wrote.

Yes, of course! They are two strands of one divine revelation. They cannot contradict each other because the come from the same Source.

But “consistent” does not equate to “identical”. There was never any attempt made to include the fullness of the faith in the New Testament.

 

[guanophore]

I also believe that if something was taught orally that we needed to believe as part of the Gospel, that God would have insured that it was written so that there would be know doubt about its authenticity.

Is this not a foundational assumption of Sola Scriptura? This is what I was taught in Seminary. Like SS, this is yet another Reformation precept that does not appear in Scripture. It is a modern innovation needed to reject the Sacred Tradition.

I don’t believe the Writings contain everything that was taught but I do believe they contain all that was necessary and needed for believers and the church. In other words, not every word they taught was recorded but every concept was recorded.

I think that someone who espouses the modern innovation of Sola Scriptura cannot but do otherwise! Any other position would relinquish too much authority to the Church, which no Reformed Christian can afford to do.

These non-biblical assumptions and precepts imposed at the time of the Reformation form the foundation that created separation from the Catholic Church, therefore, they must be maintained.

For instance, I believe that if the Apostles taught that Mary was the new Eve and it is necessary for us to believe that Mary is the new Eve

I don’t see why. There is already so much of Scripture that must be ignored in order to support Reformed theology, why would this make a difference?

I am also curious why Mary being the new Eve (mother of all living) would be in any way contradictory to your present beliefs?

For instance, I believe that if the Apostles taught that Mary …was sinless, and the mediatrix of all graces then God would have seen fit to explicitly include it in what would become the New Testament.

Of course, we read it differently, which relates to the core of Sacred Tradition - how the Sacred Writings are to be understood. Although I agree that it would be easier if these things were more specifically explicit in scripture, they are not. God did not intend for them to be so.

 

[guanophore]

But we will disagree on things that do seem to be quite explicit, such as the regenerative nature of baptism:

1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

So clearly, things that are “explicit” do not make that much difference. One still reads from the point of view of their own theology.

We should believe the Gospel. The only source of the Gospel to our generation are the scriptures.

This is what you have been taught to believe, of course, but it is not the case.This is yet another modern innovation.

However, the principal of relying on the scriptures as the final authority is certainly found in scripture.

That is probably an issue for another thread, but naturally we disagree.

The reasons something was tradition is because it was found in scripture.

No. They are two equal strands of one divine revelation. They support one another. Scripture is the product of Sacred Tradition.

Even the very earliest writings quote the Gospels and Paul’s writings as authoritative.

Of course the Scripture is authorative. So is the Church.

When these scholars started reading the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they discovered that much of what was translated in the Vulgate was incorrect.

I am certain that this is what you were taught. And it would certainly seem to be incorrect from the Reformation point of view. Otherwise, the authority of the Church could not be jettisoned.

For instance, where the Vulgate said “Do penance” the Greek actually said “repent”. It was this new understanding of Greek and Hebrew which lead many to understand that much of what the church taught was not in the scriptures and some of what it taught was based on an incorrect understanding due to the Latin translation.

It is definitely a misunderstanding, but probably also outside the scope of this thread.

Anyone can say “This is part of tradition”.

The can, but that does not make it so.

For Tradition to be actual “tradition” and not someones opinion, then it had to bow to scripture.

And yet, this statement is contrary to what Scripture itself teaches!

 

[po18guy]

TgG, when you are permitted back in, re-read your thread tile and your question.

Realize that the Church is older than the bible. What you should be asking is: “How can I be certain that the bible agrees with the Apostles who were taught by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.” That is not only the correct procedure, it is in your bible.

You do realize that Paul went to Peter to ensure that his gospel agreed with that of the chief of the Apostles? True. That is in your bible.

I trust the bible because members of the Catholic Church wrote it, tested it, approved it in council (think: Acts 15), preserved it and disseminated it so that you and I can have the Sacred Scriptures.

Without the Catholic Church, the bible could not be trusted.

Fact.

 

[MT1926]

TgG, when you are permitted back in, re-read your thread tile and your question.

WHAAAAAAAAAAT???

And here I just thought he was ignoring me again.

I don’t mind TgG when he ignorest the verses of scripture I ask him about it just strengthens my Catholic faith.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

It is a valid question. Many things that were practiced were never even mentioned in passing. The fathers wrote about issues of controversy, and since everyone accepted the role of Mary in the Church, there was nothing to write! we don’t see them writing about the Trinity, either, except in response to the heresies. The fact that the term Trinity was not adopted formally by the Church until 325 does not mean it only began to be believed at that time!

I think you are assuming they were not because they are not contained in controversies addressed by the early Fathers.

Not only where that not contained in the earliest writings you can track the development of doctrines in later writers. You can almost track the thought process of the Church Fathers as the grappled with answers to questions. Much of “Sacred Tradition” came, not from the teachings of the apostles, but from the speculations and assumptions of theologians as they attempted to answer tough questions.

But then, as now, people read the NT and arrive at an understanding from Scripture that is not consistent with Sacred Tradition.

Either that or they are discovering that Sacred Tradition is not consistent with the New Testament.

 

[lanman87]

That’s an interesting interpretation. So you believe Jesus was saying take it to your individual church, not One Unified Authoritative Church, and since no one person or the Church has any real authority the congregation can get together and take a vote?

I believe He was talking to a local church dealing with local issues and when He said to take it to the church he was saying take it to the assembly. Assembly is the meaning of the word used for church.

Last year we had this happen in my local church. A prominent member of the church was living in sin. One elder went and talked to him. We he refused to repent, three elders went and talked to him. We he refused to repent a special meeting of the church was called and the man’s sin was made public and we were told by the elders to “treat him as a pagan or a tax collector”.

Interesting. So do you believe Jesus left us rulers? Or Were you just making a statement?

The Isaiah Passage you quoted was dealing with secular rulers. This is consistent with Romans 13:1.

As for the church. God calls men to be Elders/Bishops/Overseers (whatever word you want to use) and those that are called have their calling confirmed by other Elders and by the assembly.

 

[guanophore]

Not only where that not contained in the earliest writings you can track the development of doctrines in later writers.

Yes. There were many elements of the Apostolic teaching that were not part of any controversy or germaine to the heresies being addressed. Some of these did not emerge until much later. Infant baptism, for example was never questioned for a milennia and a half and especially in the last 200 years or so. As a result, the only writing we see is the controversy about whether the Church should wait 8 days.

Much of “Sacred Tradition” came, not from the teachings of the apostles, but from the speculations and assumptions of theologians as they attempted to answer tough questions.

Sacred Tradition, or the teaching of the Apostles, was part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. This means it was closed at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted. As we trace the grappling through the centuries, it is our understanding and application of their teaching that develops, not the doctrine. Doctrine cannot be changed, any more than we could add books to the NT.

Either that or they are discovering that Sacred Tradition is not consistent with the New Testament.

Without a doubt, there are many who have read it, and in their perception, the interpretation is not consistent. But in actuality, there can be no discrepancy, since they both come from the same Source.

I believe He was talking to a local church dealing with local issues and when He said to take it to the church he was saying take it to the assembly. Assembly is the meaning of the word used for church.

I think this comes from a misunderstanding about the nature of Church. Jesus founded His Church on the Apostles and Prophets. It is authorative, and visible. If there were not a heirarchy, there would be no point in taking a dispute “to the Church”, since it would result in nothing but more democratic votes.

The definition of church as “the body of believers on earth” is deficient, so any interpretation of “church” from scripture that uses this deficient definition is going to miss the mark.

A reading of the early writings makes it clear that the Church was organized around the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. Bishops had “all authority”, rather than a local “assembly”.

 

[MT1926]

I believe He was talking to a local church dealing with local issues and when He said to take it to the church he was saying take it to the assembly. Assembly is the meaning of the word used for church.

I’m not sure how you are seeing this interpretation. Would you be able to show me how you are coming up with this teaching. Seems to me this would be one of those major issues that should be explicitly taught in the Bible.

From my view point when I read this verse it sure seems like Jesus is talking to the Apostles and not a “LOCAL” church. I don’t see Him telling them to take it to the Assembly and let them vote on it. I see Jesus teaching the Apostles how He wants the Church to be run.

I’m sure you won’t agree on the correlation but this is Matthew 18, Just two chapters after Matthew 16 in which Jesus tells us that He will build His Church on the Rock (16:18). He will give authority to His ONE Church ((16:19), nowhere does He allude to giving authority to a bunch of His “local churches”. I really don’t see how we can think He is talking about local assemblies just two chapters after He just told us He would build a Church. Add to this that these two chapters are the only 2 times Jesus uses the word Church in all of the Gospels, I honestly can’t see how we can think He was speaking of any other Church than the one He built and gave the Apostles the Authority to govern?

As for the church. God calls men to be Elders/Bishops/Overseers (whatever word you want to use) and those that are called have their calling confirmed by other Elders and by the assembly.

OK. But the part of the equation that I don’t understand is who confirmed the original elders in your church? Did they confirm themselves? and by what Authority did they do so?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Sacred Tradition, or the teaching of the Apostles, was part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. This means it was closed at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted. As we trace the grappling through the centuries, it is our understanding and application of their teaching that develops, not the doctrine. Doctrine cannot be changed, any more than we could add books to the NT.

Then why didn’t the ECF just say “Paul, or Peter or James taught us X” when dealing with issues instead of using philosophical methods and speculation when contemplating theological questions?

I think this comes from a misunderstanding about the nature of Church. Jesus founded His Church on the Apostles and Prophets. It is authorative, and visible. If there were not a heirarchy, there would be no point in taking a dispute “to the Church”, since it would result in nothing but more democratic votes.

It comes from the fact that the actual word for Church means assembly or more accurately in context, “God’s People”.

It wasn’t until later that definition of Church became anything more than an assembly of believers.

A reading of the early writings makes it clear that the Church was organized around the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. Bishops had “all authority”, rather than a local “assembly”.

We will just have to agree to disagree. In the early church the assembly chose the elders. Evangelicals basically follow the instructions in the Didache Chapter 15

Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

Bishops being appointed by other bishops was a later development.

 

[guanophore]

Then why didn’t the ECF just say “Paul, or Peter or James taught us X” when dealing with issues instead of using philosophical methods and speculation when contemplating theological questions?

They did both. They used reason, Scripture, and Apostolic Teaching to fight heresy.

It comes from the fact that the actual word for Church means assembly or more accurately in context, “God’s People”.

Yes, this is part of the meaning of “church” - the called out ones. But it is not the only aspect of the Church. the Church also includes those who have gone on before us in the faith. The Church founded by Christ is visible in the world (has identifiable structure) and is authorative (has Jesus authority passed through the successors of the Apostles).

It wasn’t until later that definition of Church became anything more than an assembly of believers.

Yes, by “later” after Pentecost, when the power of the Holy Spirit came upon them. The HS is the soul of the Church, and the One who gives the gifts and ministries. It is He who works through those who He has placed in those ministries to prevent the Church from falling into error.

Bishops being appointed by other bishops was a later development.

Yes, of course. In the NT we see Apostles appointing Bishops, and bishops appointing the priests. But the two are not contrary to each other. Those who are ordained emerge first from their community and are supported in seminary through the discernment process. The communities continue to support them after they are ordained and take up their service to the Church. The oversight of the Bishops in this process prevents persons from being ordained who are not suitable.

 

[MT1926]

We will just have to agree to disagree. In the early church the assembly chose the elders. Evangelicals basically follow the instructions in the Didache Chapter 15

Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

This got me curious. How come they follow these instructions in the Didache,yet ignore the others?

I’m not sure if you are aware or not but Chapter 15 builds upon the Chapters that came before it. Which would include Chapter 11…

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not;…

This screams of Oral tradition. The Teachers, Bishops, Elders, what ever you want to call them, are suppose to come from the men who teach in agreement with the ORAL TRADITION (the things that have been said before).

Bishops being appointed by other bishops was a later development.

I haven’t really studied this I will take your word on it, but my best guess was it started because elections turned into a popularity contest and not on the quality of their teaching.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

This screams of Oral tradition. The Teachers, Bishops, Elders, what ever you want to call them, are suppose to come from the men who teach in agreement with the ORAL TRADITION (the things that have been said before).

Yes, it also screams that there were many who were claiming “oral tradition” but who were in fact teaching another Christ. The burden on the Catholic church is to prove that what it teaches is “all things that have been said before” and not another doctrine.

BTW- I would make the claim that neither Catholics nor Evangelicals fully follow the teachings of the Didache. Which is fine because the Didache isn’t scripture and much of what is in the Didache is descriptive, not prescriptive.

My question is, if the Didache is one of the earliest non-scriptural writings of the church and accurate describes the thoughts of the early church, Why did the Catholic church abandon so many of the practices spelled out in the Didache?

For instance, Baptism in the Didache was believers baptism and the preferred method was immersion and pouring was only to be used if there was not enough water for immersion. We also know from history that the early meeting places of Christians had baptistries where people where immersed. We also know that those that were to be baptized were instructed to fast before baptism. There is no mention of infant baptism and the fact that those to be baptized were to fast indicates that it was children or adults who were baptized.

So why isn’t immersion the primary mode of baptism for the Catholic Church? The church certainly has the money to build baptistries in the church buildings. Water is no longer an issue in 90% of the world so there is, in most cases, no need to pour.

Also, the Didache quotes Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Thessalonians as well and Exodus and Deuteronomy. Most say the book was written around the end of the 1st Century. Most date it around the year 80. If nothing else this proves that the writings that would later be codified into the New Testament were already being used as authoritative scripture very early in Church History. The Gospel was moving from being transmitted orally from person to person to being written and preserved.

 

[MT1926]

Yes, it also screams that there were many who were claiming “oral tradition” but who were in fact teaching another Christ. The burden on the Catholic church is to prove that what it teaches is “all things that have been said before” and not another doctrine.

Once again you are trying to skip over the basics and concentrate on the advanced stuff. Even though we have the Bible now this statement still applies. If someone comes and teaches a different interpretation of the Scriptures than what was heard before the only way to know this would be by the ORAL traditions of Gospel message from the beginning. Like I mentioned in an earlier post if you want to know the value of Y in the equation 2X=Y you need to first know the value of X, which is what was said before. If your tradition only goes back say 500 years tops how can you possible claim to know what the original writers meant?

BTW- I would make the claim that neither Catholics nor Evangelicals fully follow the teachings of the Didache. Which is fine because the Didache isn’t scripture and much of what is in the Didache is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Which is why I was surprised you brought it up in the first place.

For instance, Baptism in the Didache was believers baptism

The Didache is speaking of adults here, so yes totally agree if an adult is Baptized it must be a believers Baptism. No where does it say infants can not be Baptized. Like already posted here we have other evidence that infants were Baptized…

Infant baptism, for example was never questioned for a milennia and a half and especially in the last 200 years or so. As a result, the only writing we see is the controversy about whether the Church should wait 8 days

and the preferred method was immersion and pouring was only to be used if there was not enough water for immersion.

Actually it does not say immersion, it says living water, which is better translated as moving water, like a river.

 

[MT1926]

There is no mention of infant baptism and the fact that those to be baptized were to fast indicates that it was children or adults who were baptized.

I’m sure you would agree that the Didicha does not go into great detail why would you expect it to have sub chapters on every single possible scenario?

So why isn’t immersion the primary mode of baptism for the Catholic Church?

Because Jesus simple stated…

Matthew 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

We know Baptism includes water and we know to use the Trinitarian formula. Baptism is a work of the Holy Spirit, if Jesus wanted us immersed I am sure He would have mentioned it.

The church certainly has the money to build baptistries in the church buildings.

Really? And you evidence for this? I’m sure you’ve studied the financial books of the Church. You do realize the majority of Her assets are in buildings and treasures that are historical evidences for the public to see the Church History.

Water is no longer an issue in 90% of the world so there is, in most cases, no need to pour.

What world do you live in? My daughter just landed in Africa for a mission trip I’ll have to send her a copy of you statement and see what she thinks.

Also, the Didache quotes Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Thessalonians as well and Exodus and Deuteronomy. Most say the book was written around the end of the 1st Century. Most date it around the year 80. If nothing else this proves that the writings that would later be codified into the New Testament were already being used as authoritative scripture very early in Church History. The Gospel was moving from being transmitted orally from person to person to being written and preserved.

And your point is? No matter how many times we say this you seem to keep coming back to accusing us Catholics as not trusting the Bible. We totally trust what is written in the Bible. I do not place Oral Tradition above the Bible I simple believe you can’t have one without the other.

The only point I am trying to make is there is no way anyone can claim to know how the Apostles intended for their writings to be interpreted unless the Apostles handed on their interpretations (of their writings) to faithful men. The men who would have the authority to proclaim, NOPE he is trying to teach a different Gospel.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Really? And you evidence for this? I’m sure you’ve studied the financial books of the Church. You do realize the majority of Her assets are in buildings and treasures that are historical evidences for the public to see the Church History.

I’m just going by the fact that if our local small Baptist churches are able to build baptistries then surely the Catholic Church can.

What world do you live in? My daughter just landed in Africa for a mission trip I’ll have to send her a copy of you statement and see what she thinks.

Well, North American, South America, Europe and most of Asia have few issues with water. They may have issues with having clean drinking water but for the most part water is there. Parts of Africa, the middle East and India do have issues with water. Which is why many ministries are focusing on digging wells and bringing fresh water to these regions.

And your point is? No matter how many times we say this you seem to keep coming back to accusing us Catholics as not trusting the Bible. We totally trust what is written in the Bible.

That was more for the folks that keeps saying there was no New Testament until the end of the 4th Century.

 

[lanman87]

Like already posted here we have other evidence that infants were Baptized…

Please share the definitive proof that infants were baptized in the 1st Century. All I can find is circumstantial evidence at best. Covenant theological arguments aside, I’ve been looking for some definitive historical proof that infants were baptized “since the beginning”.

All I’ve found are the arguments that households were baptized which may or may not have included children to young to believe. The first writing I can find that specifically instruct infant baptism were written around 200, a full 170 years after Pentecost. Also, historically it seems that infant baptism didn’t become the norm until the late 4th maybe early 5th Centuries. For instance Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all had Christian mothers yet were not baptized as infants. If infant baptism was the standard practice then one has to wonder why three of the great leaders of the church were not baptized as infants.

I’ve seen Polycarp offered as an example because he said something along the lines of “86 years I’ve followed Christ” when he was martyred. Of course he could have been 90 years old and baptized at age 4 (which happens in Baptist churches at least) or he could have been using hyperbole. I’ve told people “I’ve been a Baptist all my life”. When in reality I was baptize at age 14.

So if you have definitive proof that infant baptism was practiced since the beginning then please share it. I might become a Presbyterian.

 

[guanophore]

We will just have to agree to disagree. In the early church the assembly chose the elders.

I wrote in another post that this is not contrary to elders being chosen and ordained by Bishops, but it is also clear in the NT that the Apostles appointed Bishops who then ordained elders. It does not appear from the text in either Timothy or Titus that the appointees were chosen by the community, but rather by the Bishops. Paul also ordained elders as he travelled. I don’t think he did this in isolation of the community wishes, but he reserved for himself the decision, as he instructed Timothy and Titus to do also.

I haven’t really studied this I will take your word on it, but my best guess was it started because elections turned into a popularity contest and not on the quality of their teaching.

Clearly the early writings bear this up, and that the office of overseer was “coveted” perhaps for power. But primarily, especially in the early Church, it was because of the paucity of Bishops. Paul put Titus over the whole of Crete, and Timothy also had a wide area to serve. Bishops were not initially connected with a metropolitan area, but they later came to be as the Church grew.

One reason for the three bishops was to reduce heresy, as, at one point, 80% of the Bishops had fallen into the Arian heresy.

Yes, it also screams that there were many who were claiming “oral tradition” but who were in fact teaching another Christ. The burden on the Catholic church is to prove that what it teaches is “all things that have been said before” and not another doctrine.

I agree! And this was also the challenge in canonizing the NT, as there were many books claiming to be Apostolic and inspired, some of which were read in the early church, such as the Epistle of Barnabas.

BTW- I would make the claim that neither Catholics nor Evangelicals fully follow the teachings of the Didache. Which is fine because the Didache isn’t scripture and much of what is in the Didache is descriptive, not prescriptive.

The Didache is a liturgical instruction - one reason it was not included in the NT. It was written by and for the elders, to guide them in the performance of duties. This is why, when it says “choose from among yourselves” it is talking about “from among the elders”. The elders and deacons were responsible for managing the public liturgy. I am curious what part of it you think Catholics do not follow today.

 

[guanophore]

For instance, Baptism in the Didache was believers baptism and the preferred method was immersion and pouring was only to be used if there was not enough water for immersion.

This is instruction about the baptism of adults, not infants. During public liturgy, many baptisms might be done during the Mass. Baptism of infants was not usually delayed due to high infant mortality rates. At first, baptism had to be done remotely and secretly because it was illegal. Baptisms were done in the desert, inside private homes, or in the catacombs, so whatever water was available was used.

In medieval times, I think that it has been convenience more than anything that the practice of baptism changed. There were huge congregations, so a font was moved into the sanctuary. It had to be small, and pouring was easiest. I am happy to see that the practice is going back toward immersion.

We also know from history that the early meeting places of Christians had baptistries where people where immersed.

Some of them did, and there are early Churches with pools. Most of these were not connected with “living” (flowing water) either.

We also know that those that were to be baptized were instructed to fast before baptism.

Today new converts are received primarily at the Easter vigil, after the completion of the Lenten fast.

There is no mention of infant baptism and the fact that those to be baptized were to fast indicates that it was children or adults who were baptized.

Yes. Even today, the very young and very old are exempted from fasting disciplines.

So why isn’t immersion the primary mode of baptism for the Catholic Church?

It is. The Church teaches that this is the fullest sign, as we are buried with Him in baptism.

The church certainly has the money to build baptistries in the church buildings. Water is no longer an issue in 90% of the world so there is, in most cases, no need to pour.

Yes, I would love to see a flowing baptismal font in every sanctuary!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But the Church does not have as much money as many people think they do.

 

[guanophore]

Most date it around the year 80. If nothing else this proves that the writings that would later be codified into the New Testament were already being used as authoritative scripture very early in Church History. The Gospel was moving from being transmitted orally from person to person to being written and preserved.

I think it is closer to 96-100 AD, but I agree with you, the scriptures were authorative as soon as they were written, but the Church never “was moving” from Sacred Tradition to written. The Church has always followed the apostolic command to preserve both.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
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.

The “teaching of the Apostles” to which the early Christians devoted themselves were preserved in prayers and liturgy. Some of these prayers were to Mary and the Saints.

I’m just going by the fact that if our local small Baptist churches are able to build baptistries then surely the Catholic Church can.

Perhaps, but the church is much more concerned about the nature of baptism itself than the manner in which it occurs. The Apostles taught that baptism is regenerative, whether it was in living water, a pool, or poured. This has much more impact on our spiritual growth than the method.

That was more for the folks that keeps saying there was no New Testament until the end of the 4th Century.

I don’t get that either. I mean, it was not collected and rubber stamped as the “NT” until that time, but the books that were contained in it were so because they were inspired and already embraced by the Church.

Please share the definitive proof that infants were baptized in the 1st Century.

You mean, like a video?

All I can find is circumstantial evidence at best.

And that would be what? That the Apostles baptized whole households? That Polycarp testified he belonged to Jesus 86 years since his childhood? That the only argument in the early church was whether they should wait 8 days?

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007c.html

Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers Tract

The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

A Brief Defense of Infant Baptism

It sounds like the beginning of a joke or a support group introduction, but it’s true: some of my best friends are Baptists. I speak at conferences with and to Baptists. I read books by Baptists (both the dead and the living). I love the Baptist brothers I know–near and far–who preach God’s word...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

And here is a Presbyterian point of view.

The reason there was such a stir in the Church over the Anabaptists is because their view was a stark divergence from what was received by the Apostles.