J
jim1130
Guest
I think that The Didache is a good document with which to start.
- Status
T
tGette
Guest
Well…thank you! That means a lot! I sometimes wonder what people think, but then I have to remember, “It is not about me, it is about HIM!”
Thank you for the succinct answer. I feel like more threads could be addressed with concise answers such as you just gave me, but instead it seems like people insist on text book sized posts. Granted, a lengthy response is sometimes necessary, but I feel like we (me included) get too wordy sometimes. It is almost as if we are ‘politicians in training’ and we are trying to talk our way around questions; Catholics and Non-Catholics alike. I am not sure what the exception to the rule here is though, whether it be more people addressing questions directly or vice versa. I hope I do not suffer too many rebukes because of that statement.
In the short response you gave me, it was very enlightening in giving me the Lutheran view on Sola Scriptura and Oral Tradition.
Thanks again!
Let me ask this, tgette, not as an attack, but simply a question.
My understanding of Catholic dogma is that it is usually in response to a heresy. The councils decided to write these dogmas down for all to read. Would you say, then, that that was an attempt to avoid the spread of an “oral tradition”? The real question being, don’t we need to be leary of oral tradition, as sometimes it morphs (I know, a great theological word
) over time, like “Whisper Down the Alley”?Jon
R
reccanboy
Guest
Sola Scriptura wasn’t functional UNTIL the death of the last apostle. That is when revelation ceased.
T
tGette
Guest
I really want to address this.Let me ask this, tgette, not as an attack, but simply a question.
My understanding of Catholic dogma is that it is usually in response to a heresy. The councils decided to write these dogmas down for all to read. Would you say, then, that that was an attempt to avoid the spread of an “Oral Tradition”? The real question being, don’t we need to be leary of oral tradition, as sometimes it morphs (I know, a great theological word
Jon
Could you please explain more of what you mean though. I think I understand your point, but I want some clarity so I am not answering incorrectly.
And so you do not think I am dodging your question, I will not be able to give a good response until this evening because I have to go to my parish and help with some preparation for Oktoberfest and then I have CCD after that. (Where I will be teaching by the use of “Oral Tradition”
) Try making all three of those faces at the same time. It is tough!
J
jim1130
Guest
“Just having a set list of what books are canonical for scripture is a tradition in itself.” This individual, who posts frequently on CA, has some good information that may be helpful to you. blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/
I really want to address this.
Could you please explain more of what you mean though. I think I understand your point, but I want some clarity so I am not answering incorrectly.
And so you do not think I am dodging your question, I will not be able to give a good response until this evening because I have to go to my parish and help with some preparation for Oktoberfest and then I have CCD after that. (Where I will be teaching by the use of “Oral Tradition”
When the faith was challenged, the Trinity, for example, or even the real presence, the Church saw fit to write down what it believed. It couldn’t rely on “oral tradition”. We have the Athanasian Creed, and you have Transubstantiation as a result.
Luke says he is writing things down, basically while they are fresh in people’s minds. One could interpret that as meaning he, Luke, and later the Catholic Church, could not rely on oral tradition, but instead turned to written words.
You may not hear back from me tonight, as I’ll be dodging your response…er… I mean doing some homework (I teach school).
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thanks for providing that quote. What you may not realize is that it just confirms what I said in my last post: clearly the debate novaslasher refers to concerns the possibility of Sufficiency of Scripture. In other words the debate is over whether all doctrines of the faith are contained in Sacred Scripture, not some idea of “Scripture alone”.
P.S. Of course, I suppose you could take the words “Scripture alone” and reshape them into “Only those doctrines contained in Scripture”, or something like that, thus making it mean Sufficiency of Scripture. But I don’t believe that is what Sola Scriptura meant historically.
R
Reformed
Guest
I use the sufficiency of Scirpture and sufficency of Christ quite a bit. They are common Protestant ideas used by many Protestants.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not entirely clear why you felt that needed to be said, but alright.
BTW, there is one little thing in novaslasher’s post that I take issue with. He says that “Tradition is transmitted through the Magisterium”, which to me makes it sound like some kind of secret documents that common folk don’t have access to.
T
tGette
Guest
Maybe we could get together for a game of dodge ball sometime?
When the faith was challenged, the Trinity, for example, or even the real presence, the Church saw fit to write down what it believed. It couldn’t rely on “oral tradition”. We have the Athanasian Creed, and you have Transubstantiation as a result.
Luke says he is writing things down, basically while they are fresh in people’s minds. One could interpret that as meaning he, Luke, and later the Catholic Church, could not rely on oral tradition, but instead turned to written words.
You may not hear back from me tonight, as I’ll be dodging your response…er… I mean doing some homework (I teach school).
Jon
It is good to know we all have lives outside of the forums, isn’t it?
**
T****he Holy Trinity:**
It was oral tradition that kept the belief that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was oral tradition that kept Christians knowing this despite the fact that no Scripture stated it in plain words. We all know the Bible does not explicitly tell us that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but we can know that the Bible tells us implicitly in the various places of the Bible that God is referred to as such; albeit separately. (With the exception of Jesus telling us to baptize in the Name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.)
My argument here would be, shouldn’t Luke, or any other writer, have said in the Bible “God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is also God”. I guess, for me, it seems like if the written side of the faith were to be held to such high esteem they would have just spelled it all out in Scripture in the first place.
Instead, the early Christians understood God to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and so the way the Scriptures were written was in a way to further clarify this for them. They already believed in the Trinity (without calling it that, of course) and the Scripture was written in a way coming from the presupposition of God being “Three-in-One”.
Am I making any sense? It sounded so much better in my head, trust me! So that’s why you should just agree with me!
Basically, the Church was relying on oral tradition for what the Trinity meant until the concept was being refuted. I see what you are saying more clearly now. (as I keep reading it). Though, couldn’t we say that their writing down the doctrine of Trinity as an extra-biblical addition which Scripture forbids?
The Oral Tradition kept the belief alive, they just had to put it in writing for extra verification, if you will. I would not say it was necessary to put it in writing to keep the belief alive.
I want to keep explaining, but I will eagerly wait your response instead. I want to make sure what I said made any sense first. A conversation works best going back-and-forth anyways right?
I guess in our dodgeball game, since you’re Catholic you get to be “it” first.=tGette;4318040]Maybe we could get together for a game of dodge ball sometime?
It is good to know we all have lives outside of the forums, isn’t it?
I’ll respond to your PM in a little bit.At the time of Luke, with the events of Christ’s teachings, life, Passion, and ressurection so fresh in their minds, oral traditions were reasonable, but even with that Luke felt moved to write it down. While not taking away from his being inspired, he still was writing from his own perpective, without the benefit of knowing what folks like us 2000 years later might want, as far as more detail.
When I teach my kids writing, I have to remind them that the reader doesn’t know what the writer’s experience has been. So it is with Luke, where the first readers knew what he meant because they lived some of the events as well. So, he might have assumed as you say here:
Hence, in Luke’s mind, no need to mention it. But he still wanted to write it down.
and you with me.Am I making any sense? It sounded so much better in my head, trust me! So that’s why you should just agree with me!
I don’t agree with the supposition that writing anything down, creeds, etc, is forbidden in scripture. So my point would be that the closer oral traditions are to the era of the apostles, the more reliable it is. As it passes from one generation to the next, one century to the next, it becomes less reliable. The example of “Whisper Down the Alley”, again.
Maybe not, but I would say it was necessary to keep it straight.
Jon
T
tGette
Guest
I agree with you, that is why certain things such as what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary at the Annunciation was implied by early believers to mean that she was without sin. “Full of grace” = “without sin”. They did not need to go into an elaborate explanation.
Also, since oral tradition kept the Jewish faith alive for so long, that proves that transmitting things orally is reliable. Back then, people were so used to memorizing things, especially because they could not rely on writing things because the resources were not as readily available as it became in future generations.
Me neither…though as you know…many Christians to believe this. I find it funny there are so many Christians who talk badly about the Catholic Church because of the Catechism as extra-biblical, but then they have their books which explain their beliefs on Scripture. It seems ironic to me and a bit like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. (Even though you didn’t!)
Was it necessary to keep it straight?
Do you think that Christianity would have fallen flat without people writing anything down?
No, but it certainly would have suffered more greatly from the early heresies that the early church faced, and the early councils were directed to counteract. Wouldn’t you agree?
Jon
- Status