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

[Guardian]

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.

If you would actually take the time to read my clarification posts instead of hustling to rebuke me, you might actually find out I agree with you, as I stated earlier:

“I agree, as should be clarified. The teachings and truth and events of the Scripture, were orally passed down prior to being written down.”

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

edited for length

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.

For pete sake…you are ridiculous. The conversation would go like this:

Protestant: All I need is the Scripture.
Catholic: You need Sacred Tradition, too.
Protestant: No I don’t, the Scripture makes me complete for every good work in 2 Tim 3:16-17.
Catholic: Yes, but you need Sacred Tradition in addition to the written Scriptures. Paul says to follow his teachings whether by word of mouth or by letter in 2 Thess 2:15.
Protestant: You can’t prove that 2 Thess 2:15 is talking about oral teachings that will not be eventually be included in Scriptures.
Catholic: You can’t prove that 2 Thess 2:15 is talking about oral teachings that will be eventually included in the Scriptures.

Saying Sacred Tradition is oral tradition separate from Scripture really gets you no where with a knowledgeable Protestant as a form of defense of Sacred Tradition, yet I hear it all the time.

Then the conversation should go something like this:

Catholic: What 2 Thess 2:15 implies is that we are to follow the teachings of the apostles, regardless of what mode the teaching is in. We know that they had other teachings that were not Scriptural that people were to follow, such as the non-scriptural letter mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9. What the apostles and their successors discern as divine truth and hand on as teaching is called Sacred Tradition.
Protestant: I see.

My point was to quit using the statement that “Sacred Tradition is oral tradition” in isolation. There is a point to it because I hear the statement in isolation as if it means something…it doesn’t. I hear Catholics throw it out as if it’s a one-line smackdown on Protestants, especially when they quote 2 Thess 2:15 and say, “see!” Of course they fail to realize that does not prove Sacred Tradition by itself. Oral tradition is not anymore specific to Sacred Tradition as it is to what would eventually be written down as Scripture.

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

You obviously don’t understand the use of ] in a sentence, do you?

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

It means Sacred Tradition is not fixed like the Scriptures. Sacred Tradition is continually being discerned.

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.

You obviously don’t understand the concept of inspiration.

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.

Because too much emphasis is placed on Sacred Tradition being oral. That’s a misconception.

There’s not that much gravity to this whole thread, and I never implied there was that much. Catholicism will not fall if people continue to say these things. The point is they are silly statements that I hear all too frequently as one-line shutdowns to Protestants.

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

Actually yes, people do say that. That’s why I labeled this thread “Quit Saying This.”

 

[Blinky]

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.

You are too funny! Thanks for the laugh.

But I realized that it is very pathetic when someone does not know the difference between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and mere tradition.

I’ll say a prayer for you, my friend.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Download an MP3 from biblechristiansociety.com

It has MP3 about the Bible and the Church, and yes the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. PERIOD

 

[porthos11]

Some posters have itchy trigger fingers.

Guardian is not attacking any Church teachings. He is presenting standard refutations to certain claims made by Catholic apologists, especially the amateurs.

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.

I would correct your middle portion here. The New Testament was written by Christians, who were Catholic, wouldn’t you say?


Yes, God gave us the Bible, through men whom he inspired. But it was the Church who determined which books were inspired.

I haven’t really gotten a good answer from Protestants when asked: by what authority do you accept the 66 books in the Bible as inspired Scripture?

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. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were

mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down,

Just a refinement. The Scriptures were written at the time of the apostles, but what constituted “Scripture” was the Old Testament. If ever, 2 Thess 2:15 enforces tradition because Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to hold them on equal ground with his letters, which eventually became Scripture.

eventually. Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God while Sacred Tradition is the word of God, or rather, the meaning of the Scripture and other things, which takes discernment to decipher from the Magisterium. But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Sacred Tradition can’t be purely oral, otherwise we wouldn’t have encyclicals and bulls now, wouldn’t we? But what we gather from St. Paul is that Sacred Tradition was integral to the early Church and had binding force, even if done orally.

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.

This addresses a very good point. We can get into a logical endless loop with this.

What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church?
What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter?
What good is an infallible Church interpreter without an infallible Church interpreter Interpreter?
What good is an infallible Church interpreter without an infallible Church interpreter Interpreter INTERPRETER
(ad nauseam)

Perhaps one of our resident logicians can help clear this up, but I would go full circle back to Scripture. Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and Christ commanded the apostles to teach. The loop must be broken somewhere, and Scripture delegates this to the Church.