Tradition, oral v. written

[Layman_F]

Are there any oral traditions that haven’t been written and recorded that are still practiced? I ask because the sola scriptura argument comes again. My understanding of the Church is that it holds tradition and scripture on par. Yet church fathers relied on OT scripture, and used what we now call the NT before it was compiled together. Every doctrine I have come across relates back to scripture. What am I missing here? Is it accurate that the Church uses tradition to describe and apply what is in the Bible? Also, when originally compiled, what was the original list of canon? Has it changed?

 

[clmowry]

Are there any oral traditions that haven’t been written and recorded that are still practiced? I ask because the sola scriptura argument comes again. My understanding of the Church is that it holds tradition and scripture on par. Yet church fathers relied on OT scripture, and used what we now call the NT before it was compiled together. Every doctrine I have come across relates back to scripture. What am I missing here? Is it accurate that the Church uses tradition to describe and apply what is in the Bible? Also, when originally compiled, what was the original list of canon? Has it changed?

There is nothing in Catholic tradition that contracits scripture.

Not every article of faith protected by the tradition of the Church can be “proved” by scripture (though most everything can be implied).

This would apply to a very wide variety of teachings.

The necessity of Sunday worship might be a good “simple” example.

Chuck

 

[NHInsider]

Are there any oral traditions that haven’t been written and recorded that are still practiced?

That would depend on when your “cut-off” for things being written down is. If you mean things that aren’t in Scripture but are taught/practiced based on the authority of the Apostolic Church you might begin with worshiping on Sunday, the rites of the Sacraments (especially Baptism and Marriage), and, of course, the New Testament.

I ask because the sola scriptura argument comes again. My understanding of the Church is that it holds tradition and scripture on par. Yet church fathers relied on OT scripture, and used what we now call the NT before it was compiled together.

The Early Church Fathers did NOT rely primarily on OT Scripture, they relied on Apostolic Tradition. They accepted the Scriptures (what we call the OT) as the Apostles had done, particularly mining them for typologies of Jesus, and added to them those writings they determined to be of Apostolic origins, what came to be called the New Testament.

Every doctrine I have come across relates back to scripture. What am I missing here? Is it accurate that the Church uses tradition to describe and apply what is in the Bible?

It would be more accurate to say that the Christian Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church. But since it is the teaching of the Church that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (John), nothing new can be added and so all the essentials will indeed trace back to the Scriptures.

Also, when originally compiled, what was the original list of canon? Has it changed?

There were variant compilations used in different parts of the world in the first few centuries of the Church. We have a a number of lists of books that date back to the fourth century (the 300s), the one most generally cited is the canon of the third Synod of Carthage, from 397. At the end of the fifth century Pope Damasus issued a definitive list (known as the Decretum Gelasianum) of “approved” books (remember that the definition of “canon” was “books that may be read at Mass”) and an appendix of books that were NOT canonical, some of them still worth reading, others flat-out condemned as worthless or even heretical.

In simple fact, one of the strongest arguments against sola scriptura is the fact that the Church grew and thrived for 400 years without a defined “Bible.” (This is not THE strongest argument, though. The strongest argument against sola scriptura is that it is not stated in the Scriptures anywhere, so if Scripture is the only source of doctrine, the doctrine of sola scriptura is . . . unscriptural.)

 

[Layman_F]

That would depend on when your “cut-off” for things being written down is. If you mean things that aren’t in Scripture but are taught/practiced based on the authority of the Apostolic Church you might begin with worshiping on Sunday, the rites of the Sacraments (especially Baptism and Marriage), and, of course, the New Testament.

The Early Church Fathers did NOT rely primarily on OT Scripture, they relied on Apostolic Tradition. They accepted the Scriptures (what we call the OT) as the Apostles had done, particularly mining them for typologies of Jesus, and added to them those writings they determined to be of Apostolic origins, what came to be called the New Testament.

It would be more accurate to say that the Christian Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church. But since it is the teaching of the Church that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (John), nothing new can be added and so all the essentials will indeed trace back to the Scriptures.

There were variant compilations used in different parts of the world in the first few centuries of the Church. We have a a number of lists of books that date back to the fourth century (the 300s), the one most generally cited is the canon of the third Synod of Carthage, from 397. At the end of the fifth century Pope Damasus issued a definitive list (known as the Decretum Gelasianum) of “approved” books (remember that the definition of “canon” was “books that may be read at Mass”) and an appendix of books that were NOT canonical, some of them still worth reading, others flat-out condemned as worthless or even heretical.

In simple fact, one of the strongest arguments against sola scriptura is the fact that the Church grew and thrived for 400 years without a defined “Bible.” (This is not THE strongest argument, though. The strongest argument against sola scriptura is that it is not stated in the Scriptures anywhere, so if Scripture is the only source of doctrine, the doctrine of sola scriptura is . . . unscriptural.)

Thanks for the long form reply. So, was the canon put forth in the Decretum Gelasianum the final, only ex cathedra rendition? I ask because some assert that the Church has changed the books of the bible before. If there has never been a change, it kills yet another criticism of Catholicism.

 

[Abu]

Layman F #4
So, was the canon put forth in the Decretum Gelasianum the final, only ex cathedra rendition? I ask because some assert that the Church has changed the books of the bible before. If there has never been a change, it kills yet another criticism of Catholicism.

Saint Jerome translated the ancient Greek and Hebrew Old Testament (46 books) and the Greek New Testament (27 books) into Latin and combined them into the first one volume set of Sacred Scriptures called “the Bible” – Fr. John Trigilio on Aug/20/2010 (EWTN)

The books that actually are the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

 

[NHInsider]

Thanks for the long form reply. So, was the canon put forth in the Decretum Gelasianum the final, only ex cathedra rendition? I ask because some assert that the Church has changed the books of the bible before. If there has never been a change, it kills yet another criticism of Catholicism.

First - “ex cathedra” is a term specific to an infallible papal statement. And there has not been an “ex cathedra” promulgation of the canon.

Second - it is very often the case that formal declarations of doctrinal positions (papal or conciliar) are only made in response to a major, ongoing challenge to the faith. Typically the things we believe are just held as the consensus fidei. So the date when something is formally proclaimed is not when it “became” a tenet of the faith, it’s when dissenting opinions were formally rejected.

With that as background, the final “no more discussion” list of the canon was promulgated by the Council of Trent in 1546 (confirmed along with all the other decrees of Trent by Pius IV in 1564). That list was the same as the one from the Council of Carthage back in 397).

 

[promethius]

Every doctrine I have come across relates back to scripture. What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that you are treating scripture and tradition like they are two entirely separate entities. They most certainly are not. Tradition is the lens through which we understand fuller meaning of the Scripture, and scripture is a codification of Sacred Traditions in written form. And all of that is given clarification and authority through the lens of Magisterial teaching.

Any one by themselves is without basis… it is only when ALL THREE work intricately together that we understand the fullness of faith that God gave us in His church.

 

[Layman_F]

Hmm… Through Word, Action and Knowledge… An example of Trinity… That’s pretty cool.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I can give you an example of an oral Tradition that was clearly established before it became written Doctrine.

When St. Joan of Arc was on trial, her English (Catholic) inquisitors asked her, “Are you in a state of Grace?” They thought they could entrap her with this question, because if she answered “no” then they would say she could not be an agent of God while not being in a state of Grace. Yet, she could not answer “yes” because Catholic Doctrine maintains that nobody can know for sure if he (or she) is actually in a state of Grace, so she would be lying. Either answer condemned her.

She confounded her learned inquisitors with her reply, “If I am in a state of Grace, may God keep me there; if I am not, may God place me there.”

However, the Doctrine that nobody can know if he (or she) is in a state of Grace was not formally defined until the Council of Trent, some two centuries later. Obviously these English clerics were aware of this Doctrine (or else the trap would not have been much of a trap - she could have answered “yes” with impunity). They set a trap with oral Tradition, not written Doctrine.

If St. Joan’s inquisitors had not attempted to entrap her with this oral Tradition, we would have no written proof that it existed before the Council of Trent. As far as I know, this is the only record of this oral Tradition prior to the Council.