Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Wikipedia is fine for locating sources and general information. Any controversial subject is usually slanted (and usually in a liberal direction), and everything ought to be fact checked from more authoritative sources. Open sourcing can be entertaining, it can even be right, but it can't be relied on.
But back to our muttons. You are changing the subject. You said that oral and written tradition could not co-exist. You were wrong. Find some other argument to support your thesis.
Your posts here are all wonderful. Thanks so much!
Good night.
Hey Bass. Good to see ya. Doin fine.
I see you are avoiding the main point of the argument and changing it to a tangential point (on which I will freely admit I was wrong). Oral tradition and written tradition can survive next to one another. But they are not the same. And Catholic tradition is not even in the same ballpark as "oral tradition" as it is usually understood (even in liberally slanted Wikipedia, which I have no idea what that has to do with anything).
So, is Catholic Tradition an Oral Tradition?
Yes it is.
This is a novel assertion. Can you share your evidence and reasoning in support of it?
**somebody who doesn't have a clue**
My, my, if you only knew..
(Hey, that rhymes)
It's a childish game.
You say what you say and we are supposed to equate Hahn's knowledge of scripture with Satan's?
Yes...very mature.
Why don't you pick out exactly what it is about Hahn's writings that is wrong in your mind?
It's most likely an incorrect assertion. I need to codify my thoughts on this a bit better.
In the early Church, of course there was an oral tradition. St. Paul even talks about it, repeatedly, mentioning letters which were not part of the Bible and oral teachings he and others had given on earlier occasions. St. Peter was a very active teacher, as noted in Acts, but most of what he taught was not written down. And we know that all the Apostles evangelized and taught, but much of their material was not written down until much later.
Until the Canon was established by the early Church, miscellaneous writings (e.g. the Didache) and oral traditions were coexisting, just as written and oral traditions coexisted in Britain and the U.S. in relatively recent times. The early church fathers synthesized written and oral tradition and wrote it all down. So over time, the transmission from the Apostles ceased to be partly oral and became written only.
Just as Homer moved from the oral to written tradition as soon as the accepted version was written down.
See post 464, we've already been around the barn on this one.
Never mind my last post. I see that the subject has already been covered.
Fair enough. But Homer has not experienced a development in its tradition. Oral tradition is a way of communicating history forward and would be a bit incongruent with a "development" like we see in the "development of doctrine" in Catholic tradition.
I think this is one of them..
It is certainly quite early..
Gospel According to the Egyptians
It is by this title that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius describe an uncanonical work, which evidently was circulated in Egypt. All agree that it was employed by heretical sects -- for the most part Gnostics. The scanty citations which have been preserved in the Fathers indicate a tendency towards the Encratite condemnation of marriage, and a pantheistic Gnosticism. The Gospel according to the Egyptians did not replace the canonical records in the Alexandrian Church, as Harnack would have us believe, but it seems to have enjoyed a certain popularity in the country districts among the Coptic natives. It could scarcely have been composed later than the middle of the second century and it is not at all impossible that it retouched some primitive material not represented in the canonical Gospels.
I think this is one of them..
It is certainly quite early..
Gospel According to the Egyptians
It is by this title that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius describe an uncanonical work, which evidently was circulated in Egypt. All agree that it was employed by heretical sects -- for the most part Gnostics. The scanty citations which have been preserved in the Fathers indicate a tendency towards the Encratite condemnation of marriage, and a pantheistic Gnosticism. The Gospel according to the Egyptians did not replace the canonical records in the Alexandrian Church, as Harnack would have us believe, but it seems to have enjoyed a certain popularity in the country districts among the Coptic natives. It could scarcely have been composed later than the middle of the second century and it is not at all impossible that it retouched some primitive material not represented in the canonical Gospels.
Gospel of St. Thomas
There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution.
**It's a childish game.**
Your seem to be the one trying to make this personal.
**You say what you say and we are supposed to equate Hahn's knowledge of scripture with Satan's?**
At the temptation of Christ, Satan used scripture in his efforts. A vast knowledge of scripture does not always equate with understanding the scriptures. The devil understands them well enough to use them to blind the eyes of anyone. Peter made mention of some wrestling scripture to their own destruction.
**Why don't you pick out exactly what it is about Hahn's writings that is wrong in your mind?**
I would be much faster to just check out some of my posts on other threads to see for yourself where he and I differ.
Now, I MUST turn in. Another 16 hour workday awaits.
Lord bless,
God does work in mysterious ways.
The anti-Catholic bigotry that started all of this has led me and some others to some wonderful readings to refresh and renew our faith.
I was in need.
will these people ever give it up?
I find them highly...illogical!
No one who belittles others for following Christ can be called a true Christian. There are many so-called Christians who love to besmirch Catholics as a way of elevating themselves. But it is prejudice and vanity that leads them to hold such beliefs.
I don't pay attention to them, because I'm certain of my beliefs. As a good Catholic, I don't besmirch others for believing in Jesus, but when the situation arises as in this thread, I don't hasten to speak the truth either.
"At the temptation of Christ, Satan used scripture in his efforts. A vast knowledge of scripture does not always equate with understanding the scriptures. The devil understands them well enough to use them to blind the eyes of anyone. Peter made mention of some wrestling scripture to their own destruction."
Scott Hahn has demonstrated a wealth of knowledge and understanding.
When christians want to use that verse of satan using scripture - well that game can be played both ways and before you know it both sides are pointing fingers at the other "satanic" side.
It REALLY comes to an issue of whose interpretation is correct.
And there are as many interpretations as there are churches.
Every church has a pope even if they reject the pope.
He may be called "Reverend" or "Minister" - or some choose to go it alone - just themselves and a bible. In that case they are their own pope.
"I would be much faster to just check out some of my posts on other threads to see for yourself where he and I differ."
too tired and not motivated.
Good night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.