[metmom]

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.

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.

[Belteshazzar]

You have essentially repeated, in expanded form, what I just said.

But it remains important not to put words in people’s mouths even if there is “hardly a difference.” annalex will not, of course, agree that there is hardly a difference and much time and effort will be expended straightening out - if that is even possible - what could be rather easily straightened out right away.

I was just trying to set the record straight so that the substance of what he said could be dealt with and not whether he said this or that.

[smvoice]

Here’s something for you to FOTFLOL about. I just found out a couple of nights ago from an RCC that St. Paul was a member of the Catholic Church. This is how bad it’s getting...OK, tell me what you do about THAT bold pronouncement!

[annalex]

We do have teachings poorly supported by the scripture, especially inthe area of veneration of saints and teaching about contemporary to us phenomena. But they do not contradict the scripture. You may call them extrascriptural but they are not counterscriptural. In contrast, the fundation of Protestantism: salvation by faith alone without necessity of the sacraments of the Church and good works -- is flatly contradicted by the scripture.

Regarding the advisability of written word when possible, I, of course, agree that it is preferable to oral tradition. You realize, don't you, that it's not like they sit around and tell some never-written-down tradition that is exclusively oral, in seminaries? The Church used written word all along. The Sacred Tradition is (a) not secret and (b) not oral. It is simply something that for a variety of reasons was not canonized as inerrant and wholly inspired by the Church. Which are these reasons? Lack of apostolic authorship; lack of direct conveyance of the historical words and deeds of Christ; lack even of a formulaic expression, such as for example in sacred arts and hymnody.