QUIT SAYING THIS! - 3 Common Catholic Statements I Can't Stand

[Church_Militant]

I’m not sure what you think my objective is, Church Militant. I’m a hardcore Catholic, I am not a post reformation step-child. Reread my statements in context.

The reason why I object to these statements is because they are somewhat misguiding as they do not lay out the complete context of the truth, and leads people to wrong ideas. In fact, it throws up strawmen for Prots to bash down. As batteddy stated, they are cookie-cutter Catholic apologetic statements that only work on ignorant Protestants.

I guess the crux of the issue is when people say these statements out of context and in isolation, like one-liners. Ridiculous.

I’m not sure what your objective was…it wasn’t clear from your IP.

There should never be a one-liner response that calls itself apologetic. The essential statements are true, but (as you have well pointed out) they are about useless as stand alones.

You’ll never have seen me use them alone.
Pax tecum,

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I’m not making the claim here, you are. The burden of proof is on you. Tell me one Sacred Tradition that is not written anywhere?

Pax tecum!

I’m sorry, but that’s not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim in your OP that all Tradition was written down. I said that you need to prove that. You cannot make a claim with no evidence and then when someone objects to it or asks you for the evidence you failed to provide, tell them that the burden of proof is on them to prove you wrong. If you’re going to make the claim that all Tradition was written down, then you need to prove that claim that you initially made; I don’t have to prove it is wrong.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Church_Militant]

Pax tecum!

I’m sorry, but that’s not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim in your OP that all Tradition was written down. I said that you need to prove that. You cannot make a claim with no evidence and then when someone objects to it or asks you for the evidence you failed to provide, tell them that the burden of proof is on them to prove you wrong. If you’re going to make the claim that all Tradition was written down, then you need to prove that claim that you initially made; I don’t have to prove it is wrong.

In Christ,
Rand

[SIGN]Point to Rand![/SIGN]

 

[Montalban]

Guardian:

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them. There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

God didn’t give us the Bible, but the inspiration for it. THE Church (Orthodox were part of a united church) gave us the Bible

Guardian:

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition.

No it doesn’t demote it. The very fact that the Bible was not compiled for 300 years means that there was NO BIBLE by which to teach from.

Guardian:

The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down, eventually.

That’s not true. The Bible itself says not everything was written down. Look at the last verse of the last chapter of John’s Gospel

Guardian:

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”
Rebuttal: What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter? The argument is a fallacy. The reason the Church exists and is useful is not because it is purely infallible, but because it has the capability to confront people that state heresy. When someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible will not yell out, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!” The Church, on the other hand, can and does.

By what authority does such a church confront people in error, if it too is in error?

 

[Guardian]

Pax tecum!

I’m sorry, but that’s not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim in your OP that all Tradition was written down. I said that you need to prove that. You cannot make a claim with no evidence and then when someone objects to it or asks you for the evidence you failed to provide, tell them that the burden of proof is on them to prove you wrong. If you’re going to make the claim that all Tradition was written down, then you need to prove that claim that you initially made; I don’t have to prove it is wrong.

In Christ,
Rand

You are asking me to prove a universal negative. In essence, I would have to demonstrate that strictly oral Sacred Traditions do not exist anymore…I can’t do that because that is illogical. You can not prove that something does not exist.

I’m asking you to give me just ONE Sacred Tradition that you know of that is not written down. Just give me one.

 

[Guardian]

There should never be a one-liner response that calls itself apologetic. The essential statements are true, but (as you have well pointed out) they are about useless as stand alones.

You’ll never have seen me use them alone.

You don’t use them alone, but I see everyone else using them alone. Look at the posts floating around. Listen to Catholic Answers Live.

They are about as much wrong as they are right if you don’t explain them.

 

[Magicsilence]

You don’t use them alone, but I see everyone else using them alone. Look at the posts floating around. Listen to Catholic Answers Live.

They are about as much wrong as they are right if you don’t explain them.

So it’s settled then.

The above arguments should always be fully explained.

Peace and God Bless

 

[Blinky]

I’m asking you to give me just ONE Sacred Tradition that you know of that is not written down. Just give me one.

I’ll give you FOUR:

Matthew is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
Mark is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
Luke is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
John is the author of the gospel bearing his name.

 

[Montalban]

I’ll give you FOUR:

Matthew is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
Mark is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
Luke is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
John is the author of the gospel bearing his name.

Another example, perhaps:
I believe that even Martin Luther in defending Sunday Worship knew that this was based on tradition, not so much Scripture.

 

[JLM316]

It is possible to be so concerned with debating doctrinal interpretation and manmade rituals that the very meaning of the scriptures themselves is lost. this causes great misunderstanding. a study of history is necessary to engage in this debate . in fact the gospels were largely passed down by word of mouth because very few people had access to scrolls where it was writing down - remember there was no printing press when scripture was gathered - it was all taken down meticulously by scribes who spent every waking hour copying and cross checking handwritten text. when the church undertook to compile what was already commonly held believes there were many alternate interpetations that had surface - there were those who said Jesus could not have been human, and there were those who said Jesus could not have been God. there were those who insisted that hebrew scriptures were not valid. there were those who were bigots who said men rule over women, there were those whose message had more hate and anger in it than the love of God. There were those who wrote down books in the 2, 3 and 4th century and signed apostiles names to it even though they were not the ones who wrote those books. in all this confusion, the church had to find unity, and so the bishops of the church got together and picked and choses the best of the writings - those which were commonly held to be authenicate and backed up what the church had already believed since the times of Jesus. The church gather and collected what was already commonly known verbally and then struggled throughout the centuries to guard and maintain unity in a very hostile world - the turks were invading and islam was creeping in from the east and through Spain. and then abuses began occuring as church began to sell forgiveness of sins - the sale of indulligences built st peters and caused the reformation to divide the church because of the curroption that had set in due to the abuses. it was men of conscience who stood fast to what the original church believed and this caused division - today the church is divided but what we have in common is scripture - it was scripture which led Luther to condemn the sale of indulligences . It is scripture that leads many a lost Catholic Christian to seek out evangelical churches because they became true “believers” in the sacrafice that Jesus Christ made personally for them on the cross - ie: found the meaning behind the sacraments, and rituals and rules - which was always there but had been taken for granted and lost as we worship our institutions rather that than God for whom they serve and ironically - it was scripture that led many a confused Born Again Christian back to the Catholic church because we tried in vain to find where it said we could never lose our salvation - I found salvation by faith alone in the scripture and I also found warnings everywhere to not fail to continue in my faith - that I need to watch and be ready that I need to be found faithful - to be one of the sheep and not the goats - seemly contradictorary and open to misinterpretation by mere men - but when one studies the deep meaning behind the words - you can see it clearly - the just will walk by faith- those who claim to be Christian must walk as Jesus did. ye must enter through the narrow gate which is Christ and walk the talk - simple as saying - walk the talk - faith is not merely words or intellectual assent - it is a lifestyle it is our entire way of being - which is the same for catholic and protestant alike. God seeks unity - and there is no way to unite by focusing on the differences. religion is the work of man - and is (name removed by moderator)erfect outward manifestation of what is in our hearts which for all Christians is the same - Love God and Love each other - with all your heart soul and mind. lest we forget what the “meaning” is because we focus on the outward manifestations of our faith which are imperfect because of our human limitations.

 

[Guardian]

I’ll give you FOUR:

Matthew is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
Mark is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
Luke is the author of the gospel bearing his name.
John is the author of the gospel bearing his name.

That’s been written down, my friend. Many many times. Many many books have it written down. There is no Sacred Tradition that exists in purely oral form anymore.

Notice how it is actually impossible to answer my question on this forum without proving my point. Anything you tell me that exists in purely oral form as a Sacred Tradition, once you write it on this forum, is not just purely oral anymore.

If you guys are getting all huff-and-puff about Sacred Tradition being oral, then I concur that at one time it was oral. That’s obvious. In fact, Sacred Tradition continually grows as the Church discerns the meanings of Revelation, so there are probably blips of times in present day where Sacred Tradition is oral, until it gets written down. The point is it eventually gets written down.

Actually, the WHOLE point, refering to my OP Statement #2, is that people in defending Sacred Tradition always imply there was oral tradition, as if all Sacred Tradition = all oral tradition. That’s simply false. Secondly, one would get the impression that there is still these oral traditions that keep getting passed on from bishop to bishop by word of mouth only and not being written down. That’s somewhat silly as well.

If you want to defend Sacred Tradition, then all you have to do is state that the Bible does not contain all teachings nor has formal sufficiency. In fact the Bible commands us to follow our bishops in their discernment of Revelation (Scripture and Tradition), not just explicit Scripture.

 

[jemfinch]

You are asking me to prove a universal negative. In essence, I would have to demonstrate that strictly oral Sacred Traditions do not exist anymore…I can’t do that because that is illogical. You can not prove that something does not exist.

Ah, taking a page from James White’s rhetoric, I can see The fact is, the claim you made was not a negative claim, let alone a universally negative claim.

In fact, re-reading your posts, I can’t quite even understand what it is that you really are claiming. Are you claiming that all of Sacred Tradition was written down from the beginning? That it eventually got written down? You’ve changed your stance several times in this thread, and I can’t figure out which stance you really hold.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

If you guys are getting all huff-and-puff about Sacred Tradition being oral, then I concur that at one time it was oral.

So in reality, you never said anything all. I suppose this is your way of admitting you were wrong; I’ll take it.

Actually, the WHOLE point, refering to my OP Statement #2, is that people in defending Sacred Tradition always imply there was oral tradition, as if all Sacred Tradition = all oral tradition. That’s simply false.

No, it’s simply true. The only “Sacred Tradition” we have was received from the Apostles. When that Tradition was written down, it became “Sacred Scripture.” What remains of Sacred Tradition is, by definition, that which we received from the Apostles that was not initially written down.

Secondly, one would get the impression that there is still these oral traditions that keep getting passed on from bishop to bishop by word of mouth only and not being written down. That’s somewhat silly as well.

You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who’s under that impression. It’s a straw man, so that you don’t have to admit that your original assertion was poorly and ambiguously worded.

Jeremy

 

[Guardian]

Ah, taking a page from James White’s rhetoric, I can see The fact is, the claim you made was not a negative claim, let alone a universally negative claim.

In fact, re-reading your posts, I can’t quite even understand what it is that you really are claiming. Are you claiming that all of Sacred Tradition was written down from the beginning? That it eventually got written down? You’ve changed your stance several times in this thread, and I can’t figure out which stance you really hold.

Jeremy

Dude…

1. Sacred Tradition has not always been in the form of oral tradition. Period.
2. Today, Sacred Tradition that is not being developed has been written down. It eventually will all be written down, as all of it has been up to this point, unless you want to state the successors of the apostles hord super secret oral only Sacred Traditions from the public.

I can’t get it much simpler than that. I never changed my claim.

 

[thistle]

CCC 76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.

. . . continued in apostolic succession

CCC 77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

CCC 78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

CCC 79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

CCC 80 “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.” 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”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

CCC 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.”

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

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

CCC 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 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.

 

[Guardian]

So in reality, you never said anything all. I suppose this is your way of admitting you were wrong; I’ll take it.

No, this is my way of admitting that you are misunderstanding me. If you go back to the OP, I even stated this: “The fact is, both [teachings and truth and events of] Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ.”

No, it’s simply true. The only “Sacred Tradition” we have was received from the Apostles.

As you read the post from Thistle, Sacred Tradition is living. Unless you want to state that the canon of the Bible is not Sacred Tradition, then you have a hard case. The successors of the apostles disputed which books were canonical and which were not. I definitely say the canon was discerned over time and is now considered Sacred Tradition, but the list of the canon was not given by the apostles.

When that Tradition was written down, it became “Sacred Scripture.” What remains of Sacred Tradition is, by definition, that which we received from the Apostles that was not initially written down.

That’s false. Sacred Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition due to it being divinely inspired by the Spirit, not whether Sacred Tradition was written down or not. As we can see from the Bible itself, Paul wrote an earlier letter to Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:9) that is not Scripture, although I’m sure it contains the teachings and traditions of Christianity.

You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who’s under that impression. It’s a straw man, so that you don’t have to admit that your original assertion was poorly and ambiguously worded.

Exactly, they are strawmen, which is why I say don’t use those statements.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

What does me being Catholic have to do with anything? These are common objections I have to standard statements made by Catholics.

Hi,
Oh ok Thanks It just seems you were arguing against your own catholic beliefs.

 

[batteddy]

As we can see from the Bible itself, Paul wrote an earlier letter to Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:9) that is not Scripture, although I’m sure it contains the teachings and traditions of Christianity.

Exactly.

The only “Sacred Tradition” we have was received from the Apostles. When that Tradition was written down, it became “Sacred Scripture.”

No. That is the misconception that annoys Gaurdian and myself. Sacred Scripture is not just “sacred tradition written down”…no, it is in fact an entirely different mode of revelation, dealing with truth in an entirely different form (inspired stories of salvation history)

 

[jemfinch]

1. Sacred Tradition has not always been in the form of oral tradition. Period.

It was originally. Sacred Scripture wasn’t ever orally transmitted: by definition, it was written. Sacred Tradition was originally (and for some time) transmitted orally.

1. Today, Sacred Tradition that is not being developed has been written down. It eventually will all be written down, as all of it has been up to this point, unless you want to state the successors of the apostles hord super secret oral only Sacred Traditions from the public.

So what? Is that your whole point? Wow. I can see the conversation now:

Protestant: So what’s the deal with Tradition and its relation to Scripture?
Catholic: Scripture is divine revelation transmitted through writing; Tradition is divine revelation transmitted orally.
Protestant: So is Sacred Tradition still transmitted orally?

At this point, you want people to say this:

Catholic: It’s since been written down (in non-Scriptural sources), but it was originally orally transmitted.

And you’re arguing against people saying this:

Catholic: It’s never been written down, it’s still passed orally.

Which, of course, no one ever says. Hence the pointlessness of your argument, and the vain attempts by people (like myself) who expect more pointed arguments to understand it in a way that has a point.

Pardon our misinterpretations of your argument, but given the complete and utter pointlessness and practical inapplicability of your original argument, I think our mistake is understandable.

I can’t get it much simpler than that. I never changed my claim.

I’ll analyze your original statement later in this post.

No, this is my way of admitting that you are misunderstanding me. If you go back to the OP, I even stated this: “The fact is, both [teachings and truth and events of] Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ.”

Which is, of course, false: Scripture was never oral. It was, by definition, written down.

As you read the post from Thistle, Sacred Tradition is living.

I’m not sure what the relevance of this statement is.

That’s false. Sacred Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition due to it being divinely inspired by the Spirit,

Both are divinely inspired by the Spirit. They’re equal forms of transmission; the one (Scripture) deriving its authority from its theopneustos and the other (Tradition) deriving its authority from the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would lead His Apostles into all the Truth.

not whether Sacred Tradition was written down or not.

But that’s at least one of the major distinctives. Scripture has always been (and always will be) written down.

Let’s look at your original statement:

I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15).

This is an excellent justification for the existence of Sacred Tradition, in fact.

This demotes Sacred Tradition.

It in no way does so. It supports and upholds the necessity of the existence of Sacred Tradition. It’s not a complete argument, but then, we rarely have the opportunity to give complete arguments in our discussions.

The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ.

That’s clearly not a fact, since it’s false. Scripture has never been oral.

They also both got written down, eventually.

Why do you insist on making this point? What’s so important about it? Why does it matter that someone, somewhere, in some non-canonical source, wrote down a portion of Sacred Tradition? What is the point of this assertion? It seems so important to you, but I can’t figure out its gravity.

Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God

Sacred Tradition is derived from the words of God as spoken through the Apostles. Their spoken words were part of the deposit of faith once for all delivered to the saints, and were no less an important part than their written words.

But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Of course, no one ever says that, so what’s the point?

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

No. That is the misconception that annoys Gaurdian and myself.

I misspoke in my original statement; I meant to say that Sacred Tradition is all derived from the Apostles’ oral teachings. Even the canon of Scripture, a feature of Sacred Tradition, was determined by comparing the writings’ doctrines and history with the teachings of the Apostles.

I think that’s what I mean to say

Jeremy