In all fairness, metmom, annalex did not say that the “RCC doesn’t need the Word of God.” He said that they didn’t need the Holy Scriptures, that is to say, the written word of God. He then averred that the RCC could get along just fine with oral teaching.
However, such a position begs the question of why God gave His Word to the apostles and evangelists to be written down. God, manifestly, thought that it was necessary for His people to have His Word in written form since He gave it in such form. That any disciple of Christ would so blithely relinquish the written word of God (even if only to score a cheap debate point) is evidence of either a) an extreme (and unfathomable) optimism when it comes to the nature of man or b) a breath-taking lack of regard (if not reverence) for God and what He has done to enlighten sin-darkened man. I don’t know which is more lamentable or more frightening.
There's hardly a difference.
He then averred that the RCC could get along just fine with oral teaching.
There are two problems with that, though.
One is what we've seen the Catholic church do with teachings that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture, the written Word- all the stuff about Mary comes most quickly to mind.
The other thing is knowing how easily oral tradition can be corrupted. If it's not written down, there's little to no assurance that the account will maintain its integrity over time, and that what is handed down from generation to generation will remain true to the original.
Once it's recorded, future copies can be compared to originals to check for fidelity. That simply can't be done orally.
While it is possible that there could be some deliberate tampering with the originals, and then destroying them, it's still far more reliable than word of mouth.
Thanks for noticing the distinction, that I didn't say even that. Obviously we need the Holy Scripture since we refer to is constantly, and it is the Catholic Church that gave it to the world in the first place. You offered a hypothetical that wihtout the Scripture the Church would be nothing, and I corrected that by pointing out that it would simply replace the manner of the teaching but not the essence of it, since we still would have the same Sacred Tradition that was the foundation of the Scripture. And, of course, the sacraments of the Church -- the core if her function -- would not be affected at all.