What is Oral Tradition

[SolaScriptura]

We have given you the links . Why should you care what my opinion of what oral Tradition is when you can go straight to the Church’s explanation?

What sepcifically about the Church’s teaching on oral Tradition do you dspute?

OK, I give up with you. I’ve answered this question once and you refuse to answer my question directly instead you want me to read a webpage.

 

[estesbob]

OK, I give up with you. I’ve answered this question once and you refuse to answer my question directly instead you want me to read a webpage.

Yes-I want you to actually understand what the Church teachings on oral tradion are before attempting to discuss them with you.

 

[exiled]

I’m not sure, but it seems like you are either saying, the Oral Traditional serves as an interpretational guide or it contains content different then Scripture. Which one?

I
I’m saying that the oral tradition is the fullness of the meaning of Scripture.

 

[JaneFrances]

I’m not saying I dispute anything, however I want to know what **you **think the Catholic position is not what I think it is based on my reading of a link. Protestants hear all the time we need Oral Tradition. OK, first tell me what it is.

Here’s the thing, I think. The OP presupposes, quite wrongly, that Oral Tradition and Written Tradition are unrelated. They are not.

I appreciate your need for a one line summation. Truly, I do. And it would benefit the Catholic position to have one handy, to be sure. Your frustration is ours as well.

However, it is necessary to understand that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two fonts from the same wellspring of Divine Revelation. Just as you can not sum up Scripture in one line, we can not sum up Tradition as such.

We can give you examples of Sacred Tradition: such as, the doctrinal understanding of full Divinity of Christ, his two natures, the Trinity, the Eucharistic Real Presence, the communion of saints, the Immaculate Conception, the canon of Scripture, etc. All of these are part of the deposit of faith, we hold as Sacred Tradition. Each can be supported by Sacred Scripture, but none is fully explicit in Scripture such that we rely on Sacred Tradition as it has preserved the truth of these doctrines throughout Christendom, especially in the face of doubt, challenges and outright heresy.

Now, you may reject one or more of these doctrines as part of your faith tradition, but those which you embrace are ultimately in concert with the the deposit of faith we know as Sacred Tradition.

 

[JaneFrances]

Can you guys answer a simple question with a simple answer? I don’t need pages of quotes from your Catechism or links to pages of explanation about Oral Tradition from an apologetic website. I just want a one sentence answer that tells me exactly what Oral Tradition is.

Please do not patronize us with your interest, then refuse to read the official teachings on the topic you are questioning.

If you truly want to know what Sacred Tradition is, then, read the official teachings which can conveniently be found in the Catechism. If you find these explanations lacking, then, please ask more questions. But do not demand a “one sentence answer” when one would not be sufficient for your understanding.

 

[SolaScriptura]

OK, I give up on this thread. But it does demonstrate a point. Catholics are sure we all need Oral Tradition, but most are not sure what it is

The often chide Protestants about their rule of faith, but when you push them on explaining their own they are all over the map. Some refused to answer, some give you links to apologetic websites, some instantly start attacking sola Scriptura again, some act as if they don’t even understand the question, some seem to give contradictory answers from others, etc., etc., It is really a mess.

Oh well, continue with the sola Scriptura bashing while ignoring the log in your own eyes.

 

[estesbob]

OK, I give up on this thread. But it does demonstrate a point. Catholics are sure we all need Oral Tradition, but most are not sure what it is

The often chide Protestants about their rule of faith, but when you push them on explaining their own they are all over the map. Some refused to answer, some give you links to apologetic websites, some instantly start attacking sola Scriptura again, some act as if they don’t even understand the question, some seem to give contradictory answers from others, etc., etc., It is really a mess.

Oh well, continue with the sola Scriptura bashing while ignoring the log in your own eyes.

You were given the information -you refused to read it and now arrogantly announce that it reinforces your opinion of catholics.

I ask you again why are you so insecure about your faith. Does mocking and denigratng Catholics make you feel more certain of you own faith?

 

[ricmat]

How’s this for a one sentence explanation:

Sacred tradition includes scripture, AND the authentic teachings which were not written down anywhere but which continued to be transmitted verbally, or via common practice.

As it says in John, not everything was written down. Much of the stuff that was not written down continued to be transmitted via “other means” = Tradition.

IMHO.

 

[Scottgun]

I ask that all Catholics remain charitable and resist the urge to zing. I don’t blame the original poster for taking this approach. I think when faced with the incoherence of “bible alone”, people tend to reach for desperate your-mom’s-ugly-too argumentation. In this case it’s the Private Interpretation Ploy. It runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s *Grammar of Assent, *the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.

If the poster had merely said, “This is a difficult teaching. Who can believe it?” he would be fine in a manner of speaking. But he is trying to imply, “this is an illogical teaching, no one can reasonably believe it.” I’m sorry, but that is a description of the bible-alone position, not ours.

Scott

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Catholics love to attack sola Scriptura, but when one starts to critique their rule of faith you find many more problems, many inconsistencies with the early church, and no firm basis or agreement to what it really means. For example they often switch back and forth in their definition of Oral Tradition to suit their current argument. So I have a question, what is this infallilble Oral Tradition?

1. 
   *]Is it a second body of teaching by the Apostles that was not put down in writing by passed down orally?
   
   *]Is it an intepretational guide to the Scriptures that were passed down from the Apostles?
   
   *]Is it the Holy Spirit leading the church in history to arrive at truths that may not have been passed down from the Apostles?
   
   *]Or is it something else.

1. 
   In a Western context the idea of “oral tradition” is a bit of a myth. Almost everything is written down at some point, usually quite early on.
   However not everything is preserved. So if we cannot find documentary evidence for a belief, scholars say it was an “oral tradition”.
   For instance Luke and Matthew have material in common not in Mark. It is likely that they used mark as a source, unlikely on other grounds that one used the other. So the material must have come from somewhere, called “Q”. However “Q” was almost certainly a written document, because the words are too close. However it would have been regarded as an “oral tradition”, because Q is now lost.
   
   “Oral tradition” is loosely, beliefs held by the Church which didn’t make it into the canonical scriptures, but which were handed down from the apostles.
   An example would be the mixing of water with wine at Holy Communion. The gospels just mention wine. However the practise of adding water is extremely ancient, and probably goes back to the apostles.
   
   However the Church also believes that the Holy Spirit guides her deliberations. For instance there is nothing on abortion in the New Testament, and only the slenderest of material in the Old. We believe that the Church’s teaching on this matter is inspired and not simply something that can be adjusted to changing secular mores. You could call this “oral tradition” but it is a different meaning of the term. The teaching is extra-biblical.

 

[JaneFrances]

OK, I give up on this thread. But it does demonstrate a point. Catholics are sure we all need Oral Tradition, but most are not sure what it is

The often chide Protestants about their rule of faith, but when you push them on explaining their own they are all over the map. Some refused to answer, some give you links to apologetic websites, some instantly start attacking sola Scriptura again, some act as if they don’t even understand the question, some seem to give contradictory answers from others, etc., etc., It is really a mess.

Oh well, continue with the sola Scriptura bashing while ignoring the log in your own eyes.

Wow. That’s an easy way out!

It is quite obvious that no one. . .or two. . .or seventy times seven sentences would suffice by your estimation.

We did not dodge the topic. You refused to respond to the answers provided because it was too long to read. . .or too apologetic. . .or reminded you too much that Catholics don’t believe in sola Scriptura. . .or it wasn’t the answer that you were expecting. I’m sorry if you can’t see the forest for the trees, but pointing out any log in our respective eyes is not profitable to this discussion as you have yet to acknowledge that people here are actually trying to answer the question you have posed.

We have given you definitions, albeit more than one sentence ones. We have given you examples. We have given you explanations. What were you looking for again?

 

[Reformed1]

I ask that all Catholics remain charitable and resist the urge to zing. I don’t blame the original poster for taking this approach. I think when faced with the incoherence of “bible alone”, people tend to reach for desperate your-mom’s-ugly-too argumentation. In this case it’s the Private Interpretation Ploy. It runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s *Grammar of Assent, *the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.

If the poster had merely said, “This is a difficult teaching. Who can believe it?” he would be fine in a manner of speaking. But he is trying to imply, “this is an illogical teaching, no one can reasonably believe it.” I’m sorry, but that is a description of the bible-alone position, not ours.

Scott

Scott,

The problem is that you can’t trace many of your traditions back to the apostles. When Paul speaks of tradition you have no proof that he meant the various beliefs that have found their way into your theology. Beliefs such as the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, the treasury of merit, papal infallibility, etc. can not be traced back to Jesus or any of the apostles.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I ask that all Catholics remain charitable and resist the urge to zing. I don’t blame the original poster for taking this approach. I think when faced with the incoherence of “bible alone”, people tend to reach for desperate your-mom’s-ugly-too argumentation. In this case it’s the Private Interpretation Ploy. It runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

I think your conjectures about my motives deserve a response. It was in no way an attempt to get you on Private Interpretation. I don’t need to set a trap for that, because you guys engage in it all day and every day. My motives was as I stated it. Catholics constantly tell Protestant they need Oral Tradition, but they don’t even know what it is. They can’t explain, without later contradicting the same definition they gave. Is it doctrine that is not found in the NT? Is it an interpretational guide to Scripture? That is all I was asking. I’m not afraid to lay my cards on the table, because truth wins out anyway it goes. Think on that.

 

[Lampo]

SS…Seems to me Oral Tradition is defined in this thread several times. You have your mind made up that Catholics cannot define it, but when we do, you don’t accept the definition.

 

[Lampo]

Catholics constantly tell Protestant they need Oral Tradition, but they don’t even know what it is. They can’t explain, without later contradicting the same definition they gave.

Oral Tradition = the Word of God communicated orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

I am a Catholic and I just defined oral tradition. Now what makes you think I don’t know what it is?

 

[Scottgun]

I think your conjectures about my motives deserve a response. It was in no way an attempt to get you on Private Interpretation.

I’ll posit that you may not have intended to, but that is basically what happens when you are given straight-forward expalnations of tradition and say they are not good enough.

I don’t need to set a trap for that, because you guys engage in it all day and every day.

The traps are of your own making. We are just pointing them out.

My motives was as I stated it. Catholics constantly tell Protestant they need Oral Tradition, but they don’t even know what it is.

Plenty of Catholics here have given you enough to work with. Now interact with that or move on.

 

[Scottgun]

Scott,

The problem is that you can’t trace many of your traditions back to the apostles. When Paul speaks of tradition you have no proof that he meant the various beliefs that have found their way into your theology. Beliefs such as the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, the treasury of merit, papal infallibility, etc. can not be traced back to Jesus or any of the apostles.

No. These traditions may not be able to be confirmed in writings back to the apostles, but you still are back to the dilemma is where is the proof going back to the apostles that the Word of God is confined to what is written? One either believes the living Church, or one doesn’t. What you can’t demonstrate is that believing in the living Church is incoherent. I can demonstrate that believing bible alone IS incoherent.

Scott

 

[reneeville]

Can you provide sources to your claim ? That doesn’t even make sense to a Catholic.
God’s peace be with you~

I’m not saying I dispute anything, however I want to know what **you **think the Catholic position is not what I think it is based on my reading of a link. Protestants hear all the time we need Oral Tradition. OK, first tell me what it is.

 

[JaneFrances]

Scott,

The problem is that you can’t trace many of your traditions back to the apostles. When Paul speaks of tradition you have no proof that he meant the various beliefs that have found their way into your theology. Beliefs such as the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, the treasury of merit, papal infallibility, etc. can not be traced back to Jesus or any of the apostles.

The problem with your conclusion is that you don’t actually believe it.

We, collective Christianity, hold the New Testament canon as part of Sacred Tradition, for instance. You can not trace such an explicit canon “back to the apostles.” Not one of the apostles wrote a listing of all the books and letters they qualified as Scripture. Even St. Peter’s acknowledgement of St. Paul’s letters as Scriptural, did not encompass the full body that we accept as the New Testament, so we rely on the Sacred Tradition of the Church which has preserved and protected the canon throughout Christendom, as challenges arose and doubts surfaced.

We, collective Christianity, hold the doctrine of Christ’s two natures–fully Divine and fully human as part of Sacred Tradition. You can not trace such an explicit teaching “back to the apostles.” None of the original 12 nor St. Paul wrote tracts defining or defending this doctrine, so we rely on Sacred Tradition, stewarded by the church throughout Christendom, to affirm this crucial Christian doctrine.

Collective Christianity, with few real objectors throughout the majority of Christendom, has held the doctrine of the Eucharistic Real Presence as part of Sacred Tradition. St. Paul comes mightly close to an explicit defense of the Real Presence in his first letter to the church at Corinth (chapter 11), but contemporary objectors would oppose such an interpretation. So, adhering to Sacred Tradition as it has been embraced throughout the ages, we look to the witness of the early martyrs, labeled and murdered as cannibals, for evidence of this Apostolic teaching. We look to the witness of the Early Church Fathers. And we trust that the same Church which preserved and canonized our Sacred Scripture, was equally capable of preserving the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.

Now, say you agree with 2 out of these 3, as I assume you do (but would be happy to learn otherwise), why is that? Why do you accept the Chruch’s word on the canon and the dual natures of Christ–both of which can not be proven per Sacred Scripture–and not the Real Presence?

Basically, contemporary Prostestantism accepts Oral Tradition. It is a mistake to think otherwise. However, they also believe that it is a buffet line of sorts–picking and choosing which Traditions to which they will adhere, which is precisely why I can drive down any given street in any given town and find any number of various Protestant churches teaching varying collections of buffet items.

The definition of Oral Tradition has been addressed. Citations have been offered and refused as “too much information.”

Nonetheless, I would urge the OP to read the links provided, especially the Catechism citations. But I would warn you that once you do actually begin to read the documents of the Church and the witness of the Early Church Fathers, you will soon recognize, as countless others before you, that the Catholic Church you’ve been protesting is not the Catholic Church at all. God bless you in your journey.

 

[Reformed1]

No. These traditions may not be able to be confirmed in writings back to the apostles, but you still are back to the dilemma is where is the proof going back to the apostles that the Word of God is confined to what is written? One either believes the living Church, or one doesn’t. What you can’t demonstrate is that believing in the living Church is incoherent. I can demonstrate that believing bible alone IS incoherent.

Scott

You guys are a one trick pony.

I could ask the typical Catholic here what the square root of 2 is and they would respond with some denunciation of SS.

You guys claim that the various traditions that are not found in scripture date back to the apostles but yet you have no proof of this.

Since scripture is God breathed and tradition is usually painted as less than desireable in the scriptures, why not cling to which is certain?