What is Oral Tradition

[MariaG]

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.

Give up? But I just found this thread:crying:

Please come back, I would love to discuss with you and try to summarize for you the what “oral Tradition” means.

Oral Tradition is the proper interpretation of Scripture. Oral Sacred Tradition also contains things that are implicit in scripture but not “fully fleshed”. Examples of this would be the immaculate conception, infant baptism, Trinity etc.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Having argued in multiple threads with the OP for days, I think you have given us the correct assessment.

Frankly, it does not really matter what I have said in response to any question, this OP always falls back to “why should I believe your interpretation of the teaching of the Catholic Church.?” When I have posted quotes from these documents, he has quoted Catholic theologians who disagreed with the passage in question, and said, “See, you guys don’t agree any more than Protestants do. You’re just as divided.”

It’s an infinite loop…

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Wait a second! Why should I accept your personal interpretation of what Tradition is? Are you infallible?

And on it goes…:banghead:

 

[estesbob]

Having argued in multiple threads with the OP for days, I think you have given us the correct assessment.

Frankly, it does not really matter what I have said in response to any question, this OP always falls back to “why should I believe your interpretation of the teaching of the Catholic Church.?” When I have posted quotes from these documents, he has quoted Catholic theologians who disagreed with the passage in question, and said, “See, you guys don’t agree any more than Protestants do. You’re just as divided.”

It’s an infinite loop…

The OP is obviously very insecure in his faith. He is one of those that trys to convince himself his bleifes are correct by trying to tear down others beliefs.I feel sorry for him and will pray that he comes to the One True Church.

At any rate Im outahere

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

(Edited By Moderator)

It’s just about that simple. Now, show me how Jesus is not a liar by proving that the Church of the NT is NOT the same Catholic Church today.

This ought to be amusing…

 

[ALLFORHIM]

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.

Hey,
I tried to PM you but your message center is full. You need to delete and clear it out.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

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.

A list of Ex Cathedra pronouncements considered to be infallible is not a problem. Papal documents are a matter of public record, as are the decisions of the Church Councils.

A list of everything the Church believes is a bit more difficult. What usually happens is that things are accepted until challenged. For instance, it is unlikely that anyone ever considered baptising long dead people before the Mormons made that a contested issue. So it wouldn’t be easy to find an unambiguous ancient tradition that the recipient of baptism must always be alive. However that has clearly been the consistent view of the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

We ask about the infallible list of books in the Bible because you get that question wrong, too! There are 73 books in the Bible, not 66. It’s a game we play with non-Catholics.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

• “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
• Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
• Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
• Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
• Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
• Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
• Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
  For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are ex cathedra, because the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility. In response to this confusion, the Church’s magisterium has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, although the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

A few infallible teachings, seven to be exact, are ex cathedra.

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.

I’m reminded that a few days ago, you told me that all papal encyclicals are infallible and that the Church teaches that the Bible contains errors…

 

[SolaScriptura]

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

• “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
• Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
• Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
• Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
• Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
• Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
• Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
  For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are ex cathedra, because the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving …
  A few infallible teachings, seven to be exact, are ex cathedra.

Is Klaus Schatz infallible? If not, I don’t know what this brings to the table, because it is just another guys opinion. As an aside Scott Hahn says there are 2 ex cathedra statements, Tim Staples says there are at least 4 and probably more, Leslie Rumble says there are 18. So which is it?
Randy Carson;1863089:
I’m reminded that a few days ago, you told me that all papal encyclicals are infallible and that the Church teaches that the Bible contains errors…

Actually, this is not true. I mistakenly left out the word NOT when speaking about papal encyclicals. I corrected you at the time when you first repeated it and it is interesting that you keep repeating this fairy tale. As a matter of fact the context of my argument clearly showed the opposite, because you were using papal encyclicals for your argument. I was informing you that the scholar knew of these encyclicals and they knew they were NOT infallible. As far as the inerrancy of Scriptures we have two individuals to believe. One is an internet apologist named Randy Cross the other is the following gentlemen:

Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as ‘probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,’ and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies.

 

[mark_a]

There is plenty of good information out there by people who can give you expert answers to the oral tradition question. All you need to do then is decide if you believe the expert information.

The truth is that you are being argumentive to try to win an argument with (mostly) amature Catholic apologists and give yourself a pat on the back.

God must be proud of you.

 

[Reformed1]

It’s just about that simple. Now, prove that the Church of the NT is NOT the same Catholic Church today.

This ought to be amusing…

Randy,

Do you really think that the NT church is even close to what the Catholic Church is today? C’mon, you can’t be serious.

It is certain that many of your beliefs would be unkown to the apostles or at least their is no evidence that the apostles believed much of anything you do.

What it comes down to with you is the “church alone” as opposed to “sola scriptura” or “sola fide”. Afterall, it is the church that tells you what is and what isn’t in your “tradition” and what scripture means and what it doesn’t mean. You put the church, at least in practice, above everything else.

So, what do you want as proof that your church is certainly not what Jesus or the apostles envisioned…except maybe in a nightmare.

 

[Reformed1]

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

Could be.

 

[Reformed1]

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.)

I guess I don’t believe that any belief is guarded by the Holy Spirit. I hate to be dense, but I don’t understand what you mean by the phrase “guarded by the Holy Spirit”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, this is not true. I mistakenly left out the word NOT when speaking about papal encyclicals.

My apologies. I missed the correction, and I will not speak of this again. It was an honest mistake on my part.

As far as the inerrancy of Scriptures we have two individuals to believe. One is an internet apologist named Randy Cross the other is the following gentlemen:

Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as ‘probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,’ and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies.

Just read the Catechism, Sola. What the Church teaches is there and you don’t have to rely on me or Father Brown to interpret it for you.

Just read the Catechism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Do you really think that the NT church is even close to what the Catholic Church is today? C’mon, you can’t be serious.

It is certain that many of your beliefs would be unkown to the apostles or at least their is no evidence that the apostles believed much of anything you do.

What it comes down to with you is the “church alone” as opposed to “sola scriptura” or “sola fide”. Afterall, it is the church that tells you what is and what isn’t in your “tradition” and what scripture means and what it doesn’t mean. You put the church, at least in practice, above everything else.

So, what do you want as proof that your church is certainly not what Jesus or the apostles envisioned…except maybe in a nightmare.

IMO, the Apostles would feel very comfortable to see how the Church has grown and matured.

Why?

1. The Mass - having seen the glory of heaven, they would recognize how the Church makes that present in the mass.
2. The Eucharist - Jesus is truly there and men who have been in the presence of the Lamb in Heaven would know his presence in the Eucharist.
3. Apostolic Authority. Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice”, and “he who hears you, hears me.” When Benedict speaks, the flock of Christ recognizes His voice.
4. The Sacraments - I mentioned the Eucharist already, but the other sacraments are just as important. Men who were given the authority to forgive sins by Christ would understand the sacrament of Reconciliation, for example.

I could go on, but you get the idea…

 

[Reformed1]

“Romish”? Such slurs are unbecoming, my friend. :tsktsk: .

You have the nerve to accuse me of calling Christ a liar than call me on using “Romish”?

You are full of bovine fecal matter.

 

[kleary]

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.

Thus dies the argument of Sola Scriptura…

A great example of the Sola Scriptura heresy is that God revealed to man a truth. This truth is called the “New Testament Canon of Scripture”.

The names of what books are in the New Testament is a truth revealed by God and is not in Scripture. No matter what, if a truth revealed by God is not contained in Scripture Alone then the Sola Scriptura theory cannot possibly be true and therefore the Catholic Church rightfully and truthfully rejects it.

Protestants cannot explain Sola Scriptura, how they believe all truths revealed by God are contained in Scripture Alone, yet one Divine Truth they all hold to, the “Canon of Scripture” is not listed on any one page of Scripture.

Catholics CAN explain “Sacred Tradition”, however with the explaination requiring many posts here they link to various websites to prove the Catholic position taken at the Council of Trent.

All I can personally say as a Catholic is that Sacred Tradition is a truth revealed by God that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE, and the Canon of Scripture proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine and the “Word of God” is fully contained in “Scripture and Tradition”. The NT Canon being one example of what “Sacred Tradition” is.

Ken

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

See what I mean? You can’t even get a straightforward answer to a simple question that they always talk about. They always tell us we need Oral Tradition, but just asking what it is causes all this obfuscation. And oh yeah, attacks on sola Scriptura.

Obfuscation?

You’re asking Catholics for their private interpretation of a doctrine of the Church, after one has given you the official teaching of the Church an obfuscation? I really don’t understand your logic at all. We Catholics do not believe in a private interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or for that matter, Sacred Tradition.

Catholics don’t have just an Oral Tradition. We have Sacred Tradition, which encompasses Oral Tradition. The Church beget the Bible, not the other way around. Therefore, we build our church on all of that Tradition, not just one part (Sacred Scripture).

Sacred Tradition is the constant teaching of the church. It is the Ecumenical Councils, the Catechisms, the writings of the Church Fathers (more precisely they give witness as to our Traditions as being the one true Christian religion), it is the Pope when he excercises infallibility, It is the Magisterium of the Church.

Oh, and we can know that Jesus intended on there to be Sacred Tradition because He was a Jew, and Jews believed in Sacred Tradition, not Sola Tanakh.

 

[YADA]

It is an Oral Tradition of the Protestants that the “Bible” is the only authoratative Word of God also known as ***“Sola Scriptura”. ***Martin Luther began this oral tradition with the assistance of the other reformers. The priamary assistance provided by the other reformers was to accept the New Testament Canon as it was handed down, complete with the Book of Revelation, First Timothy, Jude, etc.

It is an Oral Tradition of the Protestants that "Faith Alone" is necessary necessary for salvation. This Oral Tradition is also known as "Sola Fide" and is also handed on by the reformers, especially by martin Luther who added the word "alone" after the word ‘works’ in his translation of the Letter to the Romans.

It is an Oral Tradition that a person is "Once saved, Always saved" which is not found any where in scripture.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Thus dies the argument of Sola Scriptura…

A great example of the Sola Scriptura heresy is that God revealed to man a truth. This truth is called the “New Testament Canon of Scripture”.

The names of what books are in the New Testament is a truth revealed by God and is not in Scripture. No matter what, if a truth revealed by God is not contained in Scripture Alone then the Sola Scriptura theory cannot possibly be true and therefore the Catholic Church rightfully and truthfully rejects it.

Protestants cannot explain Sola Scriptura, how they believe all truths revealed by God are contained in Scripture Alone, yet one Divine Truth they all hold to, the “Canon of Scripture” is not listed on any one page of Scripture.

Catholics CAN explain “Sacred Tradition”, however with the explaination requiring many posts here they link to various websites to prove the Catholic position taken at the Council of Trent.

All I can personally say as a Catholic is that Sacred Tradition is a truth revealed by God that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE, and the Canon of Scripture proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine and the “Word of God” is fully contained in “Scripture and Tradition”. The NT Canon being one example of what “Sacred Tradition” is.

Ken

Ken, and not only that, but when you adhere to a doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (there isn’t one definition all Protestants can agree on), it leads to other mischevious things as well. Disagree with something that Scripture says? Throw it out! It really wasn’t Scripture in the first place.

Yet, to figure this bizarre idea out, they rely on some heretical/misunderstood teachings in the past. All is well that ends well, however, as the Church that begat the Bible is still alive and publishing the true canon of the Bible.