Oral Tradition

[Will_Pick]

**

Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to
the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition:

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?

**

 

[Liberian]

**Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to
the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition:

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?**

Will,

I don’t have a good answer for you, but I would look in the writings of the Early Church Fathers for things that they wrote down as having heard from the Apostles. The bland statement of “No verifiable example has been or can be offered” sounds like either wishful thinking or unsupported assertion.

• Liberian

 

[Todd_Easton]

Will Pick:

**Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to **
**the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition: **

**Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith **
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?

What do they mean by extrabiblical? Do they mean what is not found in Catholic Bibles or what is not found in Protestant Bibles? The list of books that belong in the Bible is not found in the Bible and so is itself an extrabiblical tradition.

What do they mean by “which is necessary for the faith”? This assumes that there is a list of necessary or fundamental articles of the faith. Such a list of fundamentals is not found in the Bible and so would itself be an extrabiblical tradition.

What does it mean to be demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age? What writings would they accept as demonstrative proof? For example:Although the Bible says that Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch on a desert road, the Didache, written about A.D. 80, explicitly mentions baptism by pouring. Is that sufficient proof that baptism by pouring is traceable to the apostolic age?

Although the Bible says that the Eucharist is a participation in the body and blood of Christ and that receiving it unworthily profanes the body and blood of Christ, Ignatius of Antioch, writing about A.D. 110, says that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ which suffered and rose again. Is that sufficient proof that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is traceable to the apostolic age?

Although the Bible says that whole families were baptized, Irenaeus of Lyons, writing about A.D. 189, explicitly mentions the regeneration of infants [by baptism]. Is that sufficient proof that infant baptism is traceable to apostolic age?

Although the Bible says that Christians gathered on the first day of the week, Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, explicitly mentions that Christians celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays. Is that sufficient proof that Sunday worship is traceable to the apostolic age?

Although Paul contrasts the Eucharist with pagan sacrifices in 1 Corinthians 10, Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, explicitly identifies the Eucharist with the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi. Is that sufficient proof that the Eucharistic sacrifice is traceable to the apostolic age?

 

[volzcpa]

**

Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to
the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition:

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?

**

Here are a couple which I can think of.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not implicitly taught in the Bible. The teaching/belief of three persons in one God was developed through Apostolic Tradition and is an integral belief of all Christians.

The definition of the canon of the bible itself is a product of Apostolic Tradition. There is no inspired Table of Contents found in the bible.

Monogamy is not taught in the bible. Although Christ said that a woman who leaves her husband and marries another, commits adultery, there is no reference in the bible to men not being able to have more than one wife. This belief is a product of Apostolic Tradition.

 

[joshua_b]

The Trinity is indeed a good example, and another would be the concept of Worship on Sunday. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that we must worship on Sunday. Also, the Tradition of infant baptism, which is not explicitly stated in the Bible, has mounds of historical evidence supporting its practice. If you wanted to go even further back than that, then you could point to the Jewish celebration of Channaukkah ( i know i butchered the spelling) which is referrenced nowhere in the Jewish Scripture (anymore) but is clearly referenced in the Catholic Old Testament. There are many more actually, and if you would like, please pick any one of these topics and we can expand on them and trace them back as far as you want to go. If you really wanted to delve into most of these practices, then we could ultimately trace them back to the Old Testament, and draw out how each of them is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and are almost exclusive to the Catholic Church.

 

[Ignatius]

Will Pick:

**Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to **
**the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition: **

**Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith **
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?

All of the Biblical Traditions are traceable to Sacred Tradition and were of oral tradition before they were written down. Additional Sacred Traditions that were not explicitly included in Bible are The Trinity, and Sunday worship. Paul even noted them when he said to hold fast to the Traditions we have given you either in writing or by word of mouth.

 

[MariaG]

the Catechism of the Catholic Church

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“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.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretion of Revelation is entrusted, “does not drive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scripture alone. Both Scripture and Traditon must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional tradtions, born in the local chuches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Traditon is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified, or even abandoned under the guidance of the Chruch’s magisterium.

---

Oral Tradition is not things that are “extrabiblical” but a better way to think of it as words that explain how to interpret Scripture.

We can see from the New Testament, many of the letters were CORRECTING that which the Church was doing wrong. What about what they were doing right? They did not need to correct that which they preached that was going well. For example: Infant baptism. No scripture specifically about infant baptism. Some say that because it is not “in the Bible” you can’t baptize infants.

But we can look to Tradition and clearly see how to interpret Bible passages on who can and how a person is born again through baptism by the writings in the first hundred years correcting those who had strayed from the teaching of the apostles concerning infant baptism. Infant baptism would not need to be recorded specifically (much implicit!!!) because the apostles were seen and did baptize infants themselves. They baptized the babies and no one had to be corrected on the practice because all had witnessed the baptism of infants.

I was involved in a thread a long time ago and a protestant was insisting on at least one “oral” tradition. Each and every one mentioned by all had at least IMPLICIT verses in the Bible.

The way to think of oral tradition is not “extrabiblical”. None involved in the discussion could come up with one “extrabiblical” Oral Tradition. It is the proper interpretation of that same scripture. Scripture that today we would call implicit, is properly explained through Oral Tradition. Infant Baptism and the Trinity are two well documented examples.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Little_Mary]

All great answers here, and here is another source:

www.biblechristiansociety.com

If you are being asked for biblical sources, this is the site to check out!!

 

[Will_Pick]

Todd Easton:

What do they mean by extrabiblical? Do they mean what is not found in Catholic Bibles or what is not found in Protestant Bibles? The list of books that belong in the Bible is not found in the Bible and so is itself an extrabiblical tradition.

What do they mean by “which is necessary for the faith”? This assumes that there is a list of necessary or fundamental articles of the faith. Such a list of fundamentals is not found in the Bible and so would itself be an extrabiblical tradition.

What does it mean to be demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age? What writings would they accept as demonstrative proof? For example:Although the Bible says that Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch on a desert road, the Didache, written about A.D. 80, explicitly mentions baptism by pouring. Is that sufficient proof that baptism by pouring is traceable to the apostolic age?

Although the Bible says that the Eucharist is a participation in the body and blood of Christ and that receiving it unworthily profanes the body and blood of Christ, Ignatius of Antioch, writing about A.D. 110, says that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ which suffered and rose again. Is that sufficient proof that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is traceable to the apostolic age?

Although the Bible says that whole families were baptized, Irenaeus of Lyons, writing about A.D. 189, explicitly mentions the regeneration of infants [by baptism]. Is that sufficient proof that infant baptism is traceable to apostolic age?

Although the Bible says that Christians gathered on the first day of the week, Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, explicitly mentions that Christians celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays. Is that sufficient proof that Sunday worship is traceable to the apostolic age?

Although Paul contrasts the Eucharist with pagan sacrifices in 1 Corinthians 10, Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, explicitly identifies the Eucharist with the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi. Is that sufficient proof that the Eucharistic sacrifice is traceable to the apostolic age?

Todd Thank you for a very good answer one of the best I have seen,One more thing can you help me find the chapter and verse on this “Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch on a desert road,” I would just like to read it for myself,again thank you its was a great answer

 

[Todd_Easton]

Will Pick:

Todd Thank you for a very good answer one of the best I have seen,One more thing can you help me find the chapter and verse on this “Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch on a desert road,” I would just like to read it for myself,again thank you its was a great answer

Acts 8:26-38 was what I had in mind. I mention this with the baptism by pouring because how much water could there be on a desert road? There is, however, a tradition that Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch at an ancient pool fed by a spring that is on the desert road which may have made baptism by immersion possible but the Bible does not mention the pool.

 

[D.Demsky]

This may be of some help,scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

 

[volzcpa]

Todd Easton:

Acts 8:26-38 was what I had in mind. I mention this with the baptism by pouring because how much water could there be on a desert road? There is, however, a tradition that Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch at an ancient pool fed by a spring that is on the desert road which may have made baptism by immersion possible but the Bible does not mention the pool.

Another point on baptism by immersion is in Acts 2:41 where, on Pentecost, the apostles baptized 3,000 in one day. I think that would be tough for 12 apostles to baptize 3000 by immersion in one day. Also, I do not believe there are any bodies of water around Jerusalem that would make immersion practical.

 

[JimG]

Since I bellieve in the material sufficiency of scripture, I don’t think that there is any Catholic truth which is extra-biblical

And yet, all of the earliest preaching was done extra-biblically, since no bible yet existed. Peter and Paul and the other Apostles were out preaching and converting, without the aid of a bible!

And here’s the thing. Even after the all the books of the bible were written, and eventually compiled, and the canon decided upon, would that have been sufficient? I would defy anyone, starting from scratch, with no prior religious experience or training, to start with just a bible, and then set out a full compilation of Christian doctrine.

It can’t be done, and people who try to do it inevitably come up with different results.

Because the way that Christian doctrine had always been handed down is by Tradition–the Apostles handing it down to the next generation of bishops, and the next, along with the bible–because it’s a part of Tradition too. The bible and the understanding of it were handed down simultaneously for most of Church history.

 

[tjmiller]

Pre-eminent Tradition, bearing on salvation: SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Chocolate is soooo good.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**

Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to
the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition:

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?

**

The canon of the NT.

 

[mmortal03]

**

Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to
the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition:

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?

**

First of all, the only thing Catholics have to prove that is demonstratively traceable all the way back to the apostolic age (besides the authenticity of the scripture itself) is Apostolic Succession, and then that Apostolic Succession defines the authority for the Church to make doctrinal, infallible, and binding decisions. After you can prove that, nothing else has to be traced back. THAT is what we need to be doing. Can anyone give us any insight into that?

Anyway, it is a Protestant fallacy that you have to trace everything back to the Apostles, because they have this eisegesis that they have to stick to that states that Oral Tradition stops when the Apostles died. So, we need to prove to them the illogical nature of this, and that this view isn’t biblically founded.

I have also heard Protestants say that anything that was Oral Tradition was also contained in the Written Tradition, that it was one in the same message, just different methods of transmission. Well, even if that is true, which the above examples prove that it isn’t, who is to say that the Bible contains every letter that the Apostles ever wrote? They would have to prove that, because otherwise, there is the chance that there was extra Oral Tradition that we don’t have written down. I wonder why they have to say that the Bible is the complete word of God? Because if it wasn’t, they couldn’t deny extrabiblical traditions.

Also, as far as Apostolic Authority dying when the Apostles died, they would have to prove that the Apostles wrote every one of the books in New Testament. Catholics don’t have to prove that the Apostles specifically wrote them all, only Protestants do.

I would personally guess that there would have to have been more letters written by the Apostles than what is now today contained in the New Testament. Can anybody back this up?

Protestants will also say that all the Apostles did or were allowed to do was spread what Jesus had already taught, not create anything new. I don’t even think that that is founded in the Bible itself, because Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them (e.g. that they would require the Holy Spirit to make decisions), but even if it was, we don’t have a first hand account of what Jesus ACTUALLY taught to compare the New Testament to. Why is that? That is because the New Testament IS that account of what Jesus taught, written by other men, and we believe (and it says so within some of the letters) that it was the product of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. When Paul stated that his letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit, this denotation itself was a tradition, interpreted by him (or a common tradition before hand) to correlate with what Jesus had told the Apostles. Even the New Testament does not include all of Jesus’ life, nor does it include all of what Jesus taught…and it says that in the Bible itself!

Anyway, if they need us to prove it to them on their terms, the above examples apply, but I would argue that their terms themselves aren’t valid.

 

[volzcpa]

mmortal03:

I would personally guess that there would have to have been more letters written by the Apostles than what is now today contained in the New Testament. Can anybody back this up?

.

In the following passage Paul indicates that he wrote a letter to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians. So he must have written at least 3 letters to the Corinthians, but we only have two.

1 Cor 5: 9-11 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber – not even to eat with such a one.

 

[dcdurel]

**

Protestant apologists ask the following question with respect to
the significance of oral extrabiblical tradition:

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith
and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. What is the Catholic answer here?
**

The problem is that Protestants cannot agree on “what is necessary for faith”

Of course we can always mention the method of worship. The bible does not make it clear how to worship

The best answer is that Jesus commanded everyone to believe the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. And this gospel that they taught and preached is found no where written at all or even summarized in scripture. There is no book of the bible and no chapter of the bible that has a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.

Thus, how do they know what the content of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, since it is not written anywhere in the bible?

Yet this is the Gospel that the people had to believe to be saved. (Mark 16:16)

We know what this Gospel is, because it has been handed down to their successors. It is the Catholic Faith. All the early Christians believed the same teaching the Church teaches today, because the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith.

That is why the Popes constantly teach that the catechisms “present the Gospel”

 

[joshua_b]

Ok to answer the question lets go in this direction…and its a strange one to take so I guess I’ll just sit back and let the criticism begin.

The most obvious “extrabiblical” tradition traceable to the Apostolic age is contained within the Bible itself…the Council of Jerusalem. The Apostles decrees in the Council of Jerusalem were not based on Scripture but on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any Scripture that would have supported the decrees made by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem would not have existed until AFTER the Council had convened. If the decisions made by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem had been based completely on Scripture, then there is no possible way that they could have made the decisions they made in regard to non-compliance with Mosaic Law. Any thoughts…?