Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: FourtySeven; CynicalBear

The RC assertion is, as I understand it, that there is, or at least was, a body of knowledge that has different content but equal authority to canonical Scripture. Supposedly this alternate stream of data was orally transmitted, and only surfaces in much later writings, if at all.

It’s hard to know how this could be proved. The problem is, attribution an origin preceding its being written down is impossible, as there are no live witnesses who can say, “yes, so and so taught such and such.”. Which means we are stuck with the written record as the only objective way to determine the content of said tradition. And nothing in the written record suggests novelties such as the Assumption of Mary or transubstantiation, until much later. Projecting that backward into an undocumented oral tradition only proves the desire to prove the novelty. It doesn’t actually prove the novelty isn’t novel.

So I think ultimately, you’d have to prove three things. First, that some orally transmitted beliefs or practices existed when you say they did, from the beginning. Second, you’d have to show they were different from the enscripturated traditions. Third, you’d have to show these traditions to be God-breathed, having direct authority of divine inspiration, in order to treat them as equal to Scripture.

It is unlikely you can show any of this, because the bus never gets out of the station. How do you document the actual content of an unrecorded oral tradition? At some point it must be written down, and once that happens, it is now a writing, and a writing not canonized as Scripture, no matter what it contains, is necessarily inferior authority, unless one rescues it with circular reasoning, I.e., the undocumented tradition gives the Roman See infallible, monarchical authority, and the infallible, monarchical authority asserts the validity of the undocumented tradition. This becomes a blank check in which Rome can write itself any new dogma it needs, without accountability to the written word of God. Doctrinal development, as cardinal newmann framed it. Which infinite circle of logic is of course both unnecessary and untenable.

Peace,

SR


511 posted on 10/10/2014 11:58:04 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies ]


To: Springfield Reformer
Which means we are stuck with the written record as the only objective way to determine the content of said tradition. And nothing in the written record suggests novelties such as the Assumption of Mary or transubstantiation, until much later.

At what date; approximately?

513 posted on 10/10/2014 12:07:51 PM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies ]

To: Springfield Reformer; CynicalBear

Thank you for this thoughtful reply. This is an excellent post. It deserves an equally well-reasoned reply in return.

Perhaps I will do so this weekend when I am taking a much needed vacation this weekend, and I am hopefully sipping a nice adult beverage on the private beach that is my destination. I make no promises however, I hope to spend the majority of my time with my lovely wife and parents.

All Christians here (Catholic and non) please pray my flight will be safe.

Have a nice weekend!

God bless,


518 posted on 10/10/2014 12:34:13 PM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies ]

To: Springfield Reformer

Well done! It really results in faith in fallible man over infallible scripture.


520 posted on 10/10/2014 12:53:00 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson