Posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) Is there an existential difference between that Jewish Oral Tradition handed down over the centuries (or even millenia from the time of Moses until that Oral Tradition was codified) and Roman Catholic Oral Tradition passed on from Bishop to Bishop until it was later codified?
B.) If an Oral Tradition is carried from person to person over a period of time (from say 33 A.D. until 90's A.D. - around the time of John's death) and that New Testament Oral Tradition was being codified during that time period, is that codification different or greater in authority (given that it could have been subject to the Apostle John's acceptance or rejection) than Oral Tradition that is/was codified over a much larger expanse of time - say from after John's death up until the Counter Reformation?
How do we know that that Oral Tradition which emerged after John's death has any veracity or authority at all? If we say "We know that it is truthful and authoritative because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop and because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop we know that it is true," isn't that circualr reasoning?
If so, doesn't that hold true for Jewish Oral Tradition that is outside of the canon (Torah) or the canon (Genesis to Malachi) - whichever one of the two one accepts as being authoritative?
How do we know that the Oral Interpretation of the codified letter (the book of Jeremiah or Genesis for example) that may have been given much later - say hundreds of years later - carries any veracity or authority at all? Did those Jewsish authorities who interpreted those written scriptures and later codified their interpretation(s) (or had their interpretation(s) codified by others "down the road a bit") have some authority that was almost Ex Cathedra in scope or nature?
As a digression, when one speaks Ex Cathedra, do they lose Free Will? Does God take over so that that Pope cannot commit error? If so, is that equal to what the Apostle Paul said in the New Testament: "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine..."
In the end, if any Oarl Tradition is equal in veracity and authority (be it Jewish or Roman Catholic) why not - for example - place that codification in a canon and include it right alongside say Genesis to Tobit and Baruch to Revelation?
The same for Jewish Oral Tradition?
Your post’s logic would deny the Church as the pillar and foundation of all truth against which the gates of hell will not prevail.
Misunderstandings about the Canon must be answered before these questions can be. At the time of Christ, there was no single canon. There was the Law, held by all Jews, including Sadducees and (laxly) Samaritans as divinely inspired. There were the Prophets, held by Pharisees as the Word of God, but not by Sadducees. There were the Writings, held as inspirational, but not in the same standard as the Prophets. (By this tripartate division, David and Solomon were considered Prophets, so Samuel and Psalms were considered among the books of the Prophets.)
Certain of the Writings were published along with the Prophets and the Law in the Septuagint. Unlike the Palestinian Jews, the Dispersed Jews became Christians in large numbers. Thus, the Septuagint became a canon unto itself, simply because it was published as a book.
It’s not that Catholics “added” books to the Canon; it’s that Catholics never infallibly defined a canon until the Council of Trent. The modern debate about the canon revolves around what may be used to establish doctrine. Absent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura among Catholics, there was no need to define such a canon.
“The Bible” simply consisted of those books used during mass, which in turn. Several Church Fathers routinely referred to what Protestants call “apocrypha” as scripture, including to settle doctrinal disagreements among Christians. Others warned that the Jews did not regard the “apocrypha” as scripture, so it made little sense to cite the “apocrypha” as defense of Christian doctrine to Jews. Still others used “apocrypha” to describe certain books which Catholics reject as non-biblical.
Thus, there was no distinction between “oral tradition” and “scripture.” What was “scripture” was what was accepted by tradition as doctrinally correct. Thus, many books were rejected as doctrinally unsound (The “Gnostic” Gospel of Thomas, etc.), outside of the apostolic tradition (the Shepherd of Hermes), spiritually beneficial but doctrinally unnecessary (The Didache), or containing far too many local variants (most Acts of the individual Apostles).
This notion can still discerned within the ambiguities of the Council of Trent: The canon is defined as those which contain unique doctrine which must be defended. “Greek Esdras” is left in a limbo: unnecessary, since it contains virtually nothing unique, but not condemned. Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees, commonly read at mass by the Orthodox, but lacking among Western masses, go unmentioned.
As local Traditions diverged, Scripture emerged as a test of what comprised authentic Tradition: nothing contrary to Scripture could be regarded as authentic. But this is a practice for discerning Tradition, not for subjugating Tradition as an invalid authority. Thus, we come to the authority of the Pope: where a doctrine has gone without contradiction from among the authoritative orthodox (small “o”) who have properly considered the notion, the Pope can discern that a doctrine has been Tradition, and can thus declare that the doctrine is infallible; he cannot decide that his own opinions are infallible. Nor can a Catholic in good faith contradict a doctrine of the Church simply because no pope or council has ever ruled on it.
Thus, it’s not a matter of a Pope lacking the free will to affirm a false doctrine; it’s a matter of him lacking the authority to do so. As a matter of being author of History, not as a matter of denying free will, God has affirmed that the Pope cannot with proper authority infallibly declare what is false (”Whatever you declare bound on Earth is bound in Heaven.”).
In a sense, then, the issue of whether a tradition carries authority, the answer is that it is a matter for the Church to decide as a whole (as in an ecumenical council that is approved by the Pope), or for the Pope to discern has been decided.
“Your post’s logic would deny the Church as the pillar and foundation of all truth against which the gates of hell will not prevail.”
Yes, it would. God is the foundation and pillar of all truth, not the church.
Yes, I’ve often thought the same thing, that the gifts that come along with prophecy should be manifest, if someone is receiving revelation from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, anyone can claim they “felt” the Holy Spirit guiding them to a conclusion, and it would be impossible to distinguish from a subjective and fallible human thought or feeling.
It’s true the NT says different believers will receive different gifts, but the apostles possessed all the gifts, so those trying to claim the mantle of the apostles have a high bar to pass.
a joy given to us by HaShem ? or A burden placed on us by men ? Is Shabbat
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Well, if you can get that from this:
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
then Holy Scripture is pretty useless in debate with you.
Jewish and Christian oral traditions are totally invalid and unreliable.
The oral traditions of any other religious group is questionable.
However the oral traditions of secular humanist and/or anti-Christian/Jewish are 200% valid and reliable and irrefutable.
(my sarcastic comment for this thread
When Moses went up to heaven to receive the Torah, God gave him the Written Torah together with many instructions. These instructions are called “Halachah L’Moshe M’Sinai” (the Law that was given to Moses on Sinai). Maimonides writes that it is impossible for there to be an argument or disagreement concerning a Halachah L’Moshe M’Sinai, for the Jews who heard the instructions from Moses implemented them into their daily lives and passed it on to their children, who passed it on to their children, etc.
Deuteronomy 4 tells us that Moses told the people of Israel to hear the statutes and decrees that he was teaching them to observe, and he concluded:
“However, take care and be earnestly on your guard
not to forget the things which your own eyes have seen,
nor let them slip from your memory as long as you live,
but teach them to your children and to your children’s children.”
I can imagine that when the people took possession of the land that the Lord gave them, they were very careful to observe the statutes and decrees that God commanded to Moses, that they committed them to memory, that they had their children and their children’s children commit them to memory, and that their children and their children’s children did the same until they were codified into the Torah.
Acts 2 tells us that the first Christians devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, and every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.
I can equally imagine that these Jewish Christians likewise were very careful to observe the teachings that Jesus commanded to the apostles, that they committed them to memory, , that they had their children and their children’s children commit them to memory, and that their children and their children’s children did the same until they were codified into the New Testament and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
And it wasn’t just a few who took the time to memorize and study it. It was pretty much everyone.
I have no argument with Scripture, only your interpretation, as it is not sensible. The church cannot be the foundation of all truth, or truth couldn’t have existed until Christ founded the church. Therefore, the only sensible object in the phrase that the description can be applied to is God, since He and He alone preexisted the concept of “truth”.
“I can imagine that when the people took possession of the land that the Lord gave them, they were very careful to observe the statutes and decrees that God commanded to Moses, that they committed them to memory, that they had their children and their children’s children commit them to memory, and that their children and their children’s children did the same until they were codified into the Torah.”
You might imagine that, but I read a different story in the Old Testament, where the Israelites were constantly backsliding, and at least once, seem to have wholly abandoned the law. At that point, when King Josiah rediscovered a copy of the Torah in the Ark of the Covenant (2 Kings 22-23) he read it and rent his clothes in grief over how the people had sinned against God. Then he assembled all the people in the Temple and made them reaffirm the covenant they had forsaken.
So, I doubt if the oral tradition was faithfully kept, when the Bible attests that even the written tradition was forgotten.
The answer is yes, as one is mimicry of the other.
So the authentic Christian tradition must be with the Church, complete with Trinity, Mariology, non-Biblical holidays, etc.
The alternative is that the Jewish tradition remains authentic.
OK, there’s another alternative: The Holy Spirit (AKA the voice in one’s head) vouchsafes private interpretation.
Christ/God IS Truth. There is a difference.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth - as Holy Scripture says. You can’t get a ‘whom’ from a ‘which’ in your interpretation. And, that’s just for starters.
To assume "the church" is the one which has it's headquarters singularly in Rome --- is to assume wa-aay too much which is not established in scripture, or WAS the identification just what "the church" was, and was composed of, in the very earliest understandings and tradition of "the church", either.
“Christ/God IS Truth. There is a difference.”
So, Christ is truth, and the church, according to you, is the foundation of truth, therefore the church is the foundation of Christ. Instead, the Bible says Christ is the chief cornerstone of the church. Your alternate blueprint would be quite unfeasible.
You err in what the Church is, to begin with. It is the body of Christ. Christ is the head.
Now review your theology with this in mind.
There is both an invisible Church and a visible Church. The visible Church is whom St. Paul addressed his epistles to.
If you think the visible Church is something else than the Catholic Church.. Well I’m not going to follow you there. It surely isn’t the Baptist Church of Dallas.
And you still have the problem of Holy Scripture not agreeing with your interpretation:
“thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Yes indeed.
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.