Oral Tradition

[GodsGrace]

The CC believes in both the written word, the bible, and in oral Tradition.

What exactly is oral Tradition?

 

[Mungo]

The CC believes in both the written word, the bible, and in oral Tradition.

What exactly is oral Tradition?

Oral tradition is more formally known as Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital "T).

Neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote books of dogmatic theology. Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox call it all Sacred Tradition (or Holy Tradition).

The various doctrines of the Church were formulated from this Deposit of Faith. Since the doctrines and Scripture come from the same source there is no (and cannot be) any conflict. But the Church does not formulate it’s doctrines from Scripture alone. The Church teaches from all that has been passed to it by the apostles.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 9PQRQ 76)
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing"

Protestants tend to regard Tradition as some dubious add on to the Bible. But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.

 

[WIP]

Oral tradition is more formally known as Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital "T).

Neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote books of dogmatic theology. Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox call it all Sacred Tradition (or Holy Tradition).

The various doctrines of the Church were formulated from this Deposit of Faith. Since the doctrines and Scripture come from the same source there is no (and cannot be) any conflict. But the Church does not formulate it’s doctrines from Scripture alone. The Church teaches from all that has been passed to it by the apostles.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 9PQRQ 76)
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing"

Protestants tend to regard Tradition as some dubious add on to the Bible. But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.

I think we, in the Lutheran church, do hold on to some traditions. Our Liturgy. Is that not a tradition handed down over the years? Scripture doesn't speak of a defined Liturgy. In fact, the liturgy we use during our worship services is very similar to Catholic Liturgy only perhaps with a little less pomp and circumstance or maybe a little less formal. It's one of the reasons I believe I was drawn to the Lutheran denomination when I once again began looking for Christian fellowship. In some ways I occasionally get the passing thought that we (Lutherans) don't always afford God the respect due Him. On the other hand, there are times when I think just the opposite and that God is definitely foremost and above all. It's hard to explain but then I have had those same thoughts when I was involved with Catholic church.

 

[Niblo]

Oral tradition is more formally known as Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital "T).

But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.

Absolutely. I needn't add anymore to what you have said.

 

[Walpole]

Oral tradition is more formally known as Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital "T).

Neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote books of dogmatic theology. Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox call it all Sacred Tradition (or Holy Tradition).

The various doctrines of the Church were formulated from this Deposit of Faith. Since the doctrines and Scripture come from the same source there is no (and cannot be) any conflict. But the Church does not formulate it’s doctrines from Scripture alone. The Church teaches from all that has been passed to it by the apostles.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 9PQRQ 76)
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing"

Protestants tend to regard Tradition as some dubious add on to the Bible. But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.

Great post!

 

[GodsGrace]

Oral tradition is more formally known as Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital "T).

Neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote books of dogmatic theology. Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox call it all Sacred Tradition (or Holy Tradition).

The various doctrines of the Church were formulated from this Deposit of Faith. Since the doctrines and Scripture come from the same source there is no (and cannot be) any conflict. But the Church does not formulate it’s doctrines from Scripture alone. The Church teaches from all that has been passed to it by the apostles.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 9PQRQ 76)
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing"

Protestants tend to regard Tradition as some dubious add on to the Bible. But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.

Would you say that the ECFs are included in the Tradition?

 

[Mungo]

Would you say that the ECFs are included in the Tradition?

Not in tradition. Their understanding comes from the Deposit of Faith left by the apostles so they are an important source of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles that was passed on, just as the Bible is.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not in tradition. Their understanding comes from the Deposit of Faith left by the apostles so they are an important source of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles that was passed on, just as the Bible is.

What is the deposit of faith?
Isn't it the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles writings and the bible, and the ECFs?

From your post no. 5:

Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition.

 

[Mungo]

What is the deposit of faith?
Isn't it the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles writings and the bible, and the ECFs?

From your post no. 5:

Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition.

As I understand the Deposit of Faith was transmitted by the apostles who transmitted it to others.
We believe that some of this was written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for example by Mark and Luke and we consider these true and reliable. But others also wrote. We have some very early documents, for example the Didache (also know as the Teaching of The Twelve Apostles), the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and the Apologies of Justin Martyr. These have not been canonised but are believed to embody the teaching of the apostles. But how much?

The Church looks at the consensus of their writings. That one small part of one piece of writing seems to be out of line does not invalidate the rest.

 

[GodsGrace]

As I understand the Deposit of Faith was transmitted by the apostles who transmitted it to others.
We believe that some of this was written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for example by Mark and Luke and we consider these true and reliable. But others also wrote. We have some very early documents, for example the Didache (also know as the Teaching of The Twelve Apostles), the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and the Apologies of Justin Martyr. These have not been canonised but are believed to embody the teaching of the apostles. But how much?

The Church looks at the consensus of their writings. That one small part of one piece of writing seems to be out of line does not invalidate the rest.

OK
Yes. Agreed 100%

I've referred to the Didache many times,
For instance, on these very threads.