Replies

kosta50 said "First, Catholics do not go by oral tradition. The Jews do. Secondly, you obviously trust theirs, for the Old Testament was written based on oral tradition, yet you are hinting that you don't. Which is it?

FK said "I have been told by Catholics that tradition is one of the three legs of authority in the Church. Now I'm confused."

Catholics don't go by "oral" tradition in regards to doctrine. We go by Apostolic Tradition and the Scriptures. Oral tradition is something that is not written down. At all. Something passed down from generation to generation. The Masoretic vowel placement would be an example of an oral tradition. Homer's Iliad as sung by bards was an oral tradition. That Moses passed through the Red Sea was an oral tradition for many years.

Here's how it works for Christians...First, ALL teachings were given orally, by Christ first, then by the Apostles to the various communities. In time, some of them wrote letters for exhortation, or as explanation of a teaching. Many of the letters were replies to the communities who were having problems, such as the Corinthians. Thus, we have the oral and written teachings of the Apostles. By the first few generations, though, men were already commenting on the "oral" teachings of the Apostles. Infant Baptism - not explicitly found in Scriptures, but implied and NOT excluded. yet, the Fathers call it an "ancient" tradition back to the Apostles. Thus, we have WRITTEN record of an oral apostolic explanation regarding Baptism.

With that said, however, I believe we DO have "oral" traditions, if we look to the Liturgy, the Mass. Our public worship of God is a lived Tradition that is passed down between generations - and not documented in the Scriptures. But such traditions are the lived faith of the Church.

FK, I still believe that you have a chronological issue with Apostolic Tradition. There wasn't the need to filter the Apostles' teachings through the Scripture at the time. There wasn't a confusion - people knew that oral and written teachings from the Apostles were equally valid. It is only during the Reformation that we really see people suddenly questioning the orally given teachings. However, it is important to realize that the Church DID write down the Apostles teachings that didn't make the Scriputres explicitly - they just are not considered inspired works because they were not actually written by Apostles.

However, once we identify something as coming from Apostles, the Church Fathers clearly have given the teaching an infallible authority, equal to Scriptures. Once a teaching is identified as Apostolic, it is by nature infallible and from God, as everything they taught was specially guided by God.

I believe the scripture was preserved by God. Nothing circular about that.

I think we need to tackle this problem. You know it is God's book based on internal evidence? So if I wrote "Thus says the Lord your God, I have a new commandment for my people. You shall follow the Book of Mormon with all of your heart - it is my message to the people of America", what would you say? How would you know that this is not from God? As you said, "what does timing have to do with God's plan"?

Regards brothers

Jo, that was a very good post. Thank you.

Outwardly liturgical tradition is, however, not considered sacred, save for the Eucharistic celebration. The oldest Divine Liturgy was practiced in Jerusalem under St. James. The East used St. Basil's Divine Liturgy thereafter. Last litrugical change (in the East) was made by St. John Chrysostomos (5th century). All three liturgies are celebrated to this day in the Orthodox Church, the last one being the "weekly" Divine Liturgy and the other two, under specific circumstances, as the liturgies of specific feasts.

So, while the content of the litugry is sacred and based on the Scripture (Gospels), the outwards expression of it, along with vestments and so on is not unchangeable.

But you points are well made regarding the meaning of the Apostolic Tradition and its validity equal to Scripture. In addition to the liturgical tradition and the Bible, the third elementnin the Holy Tradition of the Church are the Ecumenical Councils.

It is important to stress that the Chrch Tradition can never be contrary to the Scripture. But simply because somehting is not in the Scriputre does not of itself invalidate it as long as the Apostles talked about it or allowed it, as documented by extra-biblical sources.

Thank you for clarifying oral and Apostolic tradition. If I have it right, the latter must be written and is infallible, the former is presumably correct or acceptable at any given time, but is not definitionally infallible and may be modified over time.

FK, I still believe that you have a chronological issue with Apostolic Tradition. There wasn't the need to filter the Apostles' teachings through the Scripture at the time. There wasn't a confusion - people knew that oral and written teachings from the Apostles were equally valid. It is only during the Reformation that we really see people suddenly questioning the orally given teachings. However, it is important to realize that the Church DID write down the Apostles teachings that didn't make the Scriptures explicitly - they just are not considered inspired works because they were not actually written by Apostles.

I hear what you are saying. We just disagree that a non-inspired work can be inerrant. You use the argument all the time: "How can you be sure?" You believe that the Church wrote down all non-Biblical Apostolic teachings perfectly because you declare they did. You might even rely on a particularly massaged Bible verse interpreted by the Church to give the Church the only authority to know scripture. You have to admit that is pretty convenient. :) The RCC establishes the authority of the RCC in its exclusivity. It goes back to interpretation of the Bible being forced to conform with the teachings of the Church.

You believe the Bible gives this transferability of divine power to men because otherwise tradition would have to be thrown out. God transfers the job of protecting His children away from Himself and into the hands of a few men. Yes, you say that God guides them, but God does not do the job Himself. When Jesus says His sheep follow His voice, it really means the sheep follow His voice as translated through the Church. We can't hear the voice of Jesus, we only hear the Church. And so on, and so on with a thousand Biblical teachings. Under this view Jesus is not a personal God at all, He is the executive who only speaks to middle management. :)

FK: "I believe the scripture was preserved by God. Nothing circular about that."

I'm no Bible scholar, but I have read every word, as doubtless you have. So, I would say that if you can come up with a writing that even approaches the Bible in completeness, wisdom, consistency, love, doctrine, historical accuracy, (add ten more adjectives that are the Bible), then maybe I would look into Mormonism. But, that's what it would take. :) Based only the merit of the book by itself, without anyone else vouching for it, do you believe there is an equal to the Bible on earth? Without the Church saying the Bible is OK, would you equate it with the Koran or the LDS bible?