What is Oral Tradition

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Jesus rightly condemned corrupt traditions while Paul told Timothy to hold fast to good traditions. We can make the distinction and must do so if we are to follow Paul’s commands.

However, here a few Traditions that I have come up with so far in no particular order:
*

1. 
   *]Baptismal Regeneration
   *]Apostolic Succession
   *]The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
   *]Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
   *]The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
   *]The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
   *]The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
   *]The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
   *]The Canon of the OT and NT
   *]Sunday as the day of worship
   *]Purgatory
   *]The Immaculate Conception
   *]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
   *]The Assumption of Mary
   *]All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
   *]Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
   ]Bingo.
   None of these things are taught Formally in the Bible.
   
   BTW, SS has nothing to do with the square root of 2. I think it has to do with the calculation of pi - 'cause we never hear the end of it. :dancing:
   
   Hope this helps.

 

[runandsew]

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.

So you do admit that we can trace some of our Traditions back to the Apostles. Do you consider those Traditions to be true and binding upon the Christian?

What about the Traditions that you feel don’t go back to the Apostles, do you think any of those are true and binding on the Christians.

And if you feel that yes indeed some of them are true and binding upon the Christian, do you feel that these were guarded by the holy Spirit from error, or was it just luck?

If you feel that yes some of these were guarded by the holy Spirit from error, and it just wasn’t luck, then why do you feel that only the Traditions that you agree with are the ones that were guarded by the holy Spirit from error.

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

So true!!

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?

 

[Reformed1]

So you do admit that we can trace some of our Traditions back to the Apostles. Do you consider those Traditions to be true and binding upon the Christian?

What about the Traditions that you feel don’t go back to the Apostles, do you think any of those are true and binding on the Christians.

And if you feel that yes indeed some of them are true and binding upon the Christian, do you feel that these were guarded by the holy Spirit from error, or was it just luck?

If you feel that yes some of these were guarded by the holy Spirit from error, and it just wasn’t luck, then why do you feel that only the Traditions that you agree with are the ones that were guarded by the holy Spirit from error.

For example, I think you guys are way off base with:
a.) papal infallibility
b.) the various Marian beliefs (assumption, immaculate conception, etc.)
c.) treasury of merit
d.) purgatory

…the list could go on.

In short, I do not think your church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[runandsew]

For example, I think you guys are way off base with:
a.) papal infallibility
b.) the various Marian beliefs (assumption, immaculate conception, etc.)
c.) treasury of merit
d.) purgatory

…the list could go on.

In short, I do not think your church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

I am sure because if you agreed with them all you would be Catholic, but what about

a.) the canon of the New Testament
b.) the Trinity

…the list could go on.

Is the Christian bound by any of these, and if they bound, were any of these teachings guarded from error by the holy Spirit, or did the Church just get lucky on these?

 

[SolaScriptura]

However, here a few Traditions that I have come up with so far in no particular order:
*

1. 
   *]Baptismal Regeneration
   *]Apostolic Succession
   *]The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
   *]Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
   *]The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
   *]The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
   *]The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
   *]The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
   *]The Canon of the OT and NT
   *]Sunday as the day of worship
   *]Purgatory
   *]The Immaculate Conception
   *]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
   *]The Assumption of Mary
   *]All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. *
   *]Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
   *]Bingo.
   None of these things are taught Formally in the Bible.

1. 
   But this is not an infallible list. It is only your private interpretation. We need and infallible list from the teaching magisteruim. You know like we claim we need and infallible list of the books that makeup the canon. Anybody could give you a list of books and say here it is. Would you accept that? No. You would ask how we know it is infallible with an infallible teaching authority to tell them. So in spirit of a true Roman Catholic I ask you for an infallible list from your infallible teaching magisteruum.

 

[Reformed1]

I am sure because if you agreed with them all you would be Catholic, but what about

a.) the canon of the New Testament
b.) the Trinity
c.)Sunday worship.

…the list could go on.

Yes to all three…am I Catholic now?

 

[runandsew]

Yes to all three…am I Catholic now?

We will be Catholic in Heaven.

 

[runandsew]

Yes to all three…am I Catholic now?

Yes, I am glad that you believe in them, but do you think that these teachings were guarded by the holy Spirit from error?

 

[Reformed1]

Yes, I am glad that you believe in them, but do you think that these teachings were guarded by the holy Spirit from error?

Do I believe them to be true? Yes.

I’m not sure what you mean by “guarded by the Holy Spirit from error”. Is the belief itself guarded from error or are you trying to ask me if I believe the church is guarded from error…or maybe I’m completely missing your question.

 

[estesbob]

But this is not an infallible list. It is only your private interpretation. We need and infallible list from the teaching magisteruim. You know like we claim we need and infallible list of the books that makeup the canon. Anybody could give you a list of books and say here it is. Would you accept that? No. You would ask how we know it is infallible with an infallible teaching authority to tell them. So in spirit of a true Roman Catholic I ask you for an infallible list from your infallible teaching magisteruum.

I see you have as poor a grasp of what constitues infallible teaching as you do oral tradition. There is no dispute in our Church about any of the items listed(except maybe bingo). You wont find them listed somewhere in some infallible teachngs book but then you wont find the ressurection ,the accension or a myriad of other things we believe listed either.

The basic problem with your questions(other than their insincerity) is you have such a poor understanding of Catholicsim that no answer will suffice for you. its like trying to discuss molecular biology with someone who hasnt looked at biology since they were in Hight School. … I think the term is “invincible ignorance”

 

[runandsew]

Do I believe them to be true? Yes.

I’m not sure what you mean by “guarded by the Holy Spirit from error”. Is the belief itself guarded from error or are you trying to ask me if I believe the church is guarded from error…or maybe I’m completely missing your question.

So the 7th Day Adventist is guarded from error in his belief that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast?

The Morman and the JW are guarded from error because they do not believe in the Trinity?

These are their beliefs.

My point is that do you only consider the beliefs that you personally believe in to be guarded by the holy spirit, and the beliefs that I might hold are not guarded by the holy Spirit because you personally do not believe in them.
(infallibility of the Pope, Immaculate Conception… ect.)

 

[mikeledes]

Do I believe them to be true? Yes.

I’m not sure what you mean by “guarded by the Holy Spirit from error”. Is the belief itself guarded from error or are you trying to ask me if I believe the church is guarded from error…or maybe I’m completely missing your question.

And how are you so certain that the canon you possess is the right canon, that an edifying but uninspire book was not mistakenly added?

I have to go. See you all tomorrow, God willing.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ceil-1]

Our faith is based on the teaching of the Apostles. The NT was written from this wealth of information. The Canon was chosen for its fidelity to these teachings. Our Tradition is based on these teachings, the Scriptures affirm many of the essential concepts. Is that direct enough for you?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I see you have as poor a grasp of what constitues infallible teaching as you do oral tradition. There is no dispute in our Church about any of the items listed(except maybe bingo). You wont find them listed somewhere in some infallible teachngs book but then you wont find the ressurection ,the accension or a myriad of other things we believe listed either.

I didn’t say there was a dispute in the church about any of them, however there would debate over the fact that these items are not formally indentified in Scripture. I want to see an infallible list of all the Oral Traditions. Or an infallible list of all ex Cathedra statements. It is not that hard to understand what we are asking for since Catholics ask us all the time for an infallible list of the books in the canon.

The basic problem with your questions(other than their insincerity) is you have such a poor understanding of Catholicsim that no answer will suffice for you.

You have no idea of what I know about Catholicism or the sincerity of my question.

Its like trying to discuss molecular biology with someone who hasnt looked at biology since they were in Hight School. … I think the term is “invincible ignorance”

LOL … you are funny. Stick around we will see how much we both know.

 

[HailMary]

I’m trying to understand what you mean by Oral Tradition.

Why don’t you start with the liturgy of the Temple and the Divine Liturgy at each Catholic Mass. Was the liturgy of the Temple, as described in the Holy Scriptures, all you would need to fully understand the meaning? No, go talk to a Rabbi for more on the their (non-existant) liturgy. This is an example oral tradition

Scripture was never, ever meant to be taken alone. There are also fundamental difficulties that cannot be resolved if we were to adhere to it only.

here are some:
Exodus 20:4 vs Exodus 25:2 (graven images)

Jesus instructs people: “thou shall not make graven images” and then 5 chapters later he instructs them to “make 2 cherubim of gold”. [Cherubim are the highest form of angels].
So…which is it? Can we have statues, pictures, of heavenly objects (i.e. graven images) or not? Later on in the bible he also instructs them to make more graven images with respect to Davids Temple (see book of Isaah).

Math 1:16 vs Luke 3:23 (Joseph’s father)

Mathew says the Father of Joseph (Jesus’s dad) is Jacob.
Luke says that the father of Joseph (Jesus’s Dad) is Heli.
Which is it, Jacob or Heli?

Luke 18:35 vs Mark 10:46 (recall when Jesus heals the blind man)

In Luke, it says that Jesus was “approaching” Jericho" when he healed the blind man. In Mark it says " as he was Leaving Jericho" when he healed the blind man. Which is it, was he approaching or leaving Jericho when he healed the blind man??

Mark 2:26 vs 1 Sam 21 : 1-6 (David unlawfully eats the bread of the presense)

In Mark, Jesus says that the high priest was Abiathar. In 1 Sam, the bible says Ahimelech was the priest. Which was it?

The biggest and most important contradiction of all.
Simple question: Did Jesus celebrate the passover before his death or not?
Big event (in that time), and surely no small detail.

Luke 22:1 and following says YES
and Math 26:17 says YES
and Mark 14:12 says YES
John 18:28 and John 19:31 says NO (he died on the eve of the passover (aka: the day of preparation).

So…Which is it, did Jesus celebrate the passover day (most important Jewish holiday ever) or NOT??

Please, if you can (and you can’t), answer these apparent contradiction using SCRIPTURE ALONE. Btw, these are used by Muslim apologists to show that there are errors in the bible. And they’ve convinced quite a few because the Scripture, without Oral Tradition, is incomplete.

 

[estesbob]

I didn’t say there was a dispute in the church about any of them, however there would debate over the fact that these items are not formally indentified in Scripture. I want to see an infallible list of all the Oral Traditions. Or an infallible list of all ex Cathedra statements. It is not that hard to understand what we are asking for since Catholics ask us all the time for an infallible list of the books in the canon.

You have no idea of what I know about Catholicism or the sincerity of my question.

LOL … you are funny. Stick around we will see how much we both know.

The above post-demanding an infallible list of oral traditions shows a profound ignorance of the Catholic Faith. of course it has been explained ad nauseum but you keep making ridicolous demands for lists that dont exist and are not necessary.

As far as an infallible list of the books in the Canon-the Catholic Church provided one. Where did you get yours ?

 

[Ceil-1]

As I said, our faith is based on the teaching of the Apostles. Period. This guy clearly does not trust our word for these teachings. It is a trust issue. There is no amount of arguing a lack of trust. Why are you bothering?

He obviously has prejudices planted in him from his faith tradition that the Church cannot be trusted. No amount of information is going to change this ingrained tendency. Only prayer can help.

I do not hold any malice for SS. He clearly hasn’t a clue what it is all about. Throwing a bunch of information at him is not the way to go. You should be more charitable than you have been.

 

[MariaG]

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?

Respectfully, I submit to you that all oral tradtions are in fact in Scripture implicitly. I was on a thread once in which a Protstant tried to get us to name one Tradition that is not implicit in scripture and everyone that was mentioned has implicit scripture. (Ironically, he could not accept “Oral Tradition” was valid because all of these “oral Traditions” had at least implicit scripture about them)

Who claimed that various traditions are not found in scripture?

As for clinging to that which is certain, we do. We are certain that God left His Holy Spirit to lead and Guide the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, to all truth

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even if the two sources didn’t contradict each other that doesn’t mean they have the same content. Anyway since you say there is no difference between the two then why do we need Oral Tradition? Based on your answer we have it all in Scripture already.

Because without Oral Tradition, Sola, we wind up with 25,000 denominations teaching contradicting interpretations of the same passage.

Infant Baptism?
Baptismal Regeneration?
Symbol or Real Presence?
Confession to Priest?
Pre-trib, post-trip rapture? Oops! That dispute is not ours.

You get the idea.