So I wanted to know what is the written contents of oral tradition? is the writings of church fathers or is it something else?
Here this will help explain.
All Church doctrine is oral Tradition.
Sometimes we read stuff in the Early Fathers and such where they write down some of these doctrines. It’s still oral Tradition, though. Simply because somebody writes it down doesn’t make it part of written Tradition.
Sometimes the Church will write something down and proclaim it to the Faithful. Now it’s both oral and written Tradition. But it never stops being oral Tradition - all doctrine is oral Tradition. What is written is never understood to be a complete expression of any doctrine.
The Church is NEVER dependent on ANY written documents. Had nothing ever been written, it would not matter. If all writings were lost and forgotten, it would not matter. Doctrine would persist (because it’s all oral).
Examples of written-down oral Tradition would include the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the teachings of Nicea and Vatican-2.
I think I understand what you intended to write here, but please feel free to clarify if I have misunderstood. Did you mean to say - The Church is never dependent on any written ONLY doctrine but instead Oral tradition and oral/ written doctrine? If that’s the case, it makes sense to me because it would never be written without first being oral.
The Church is never dependent on written doctrine. I’m saying all doctrine remains oral even if the Church writes it down. The written doctrine is only a snapshot in time of oral Tradition. The written doctrine is true but is always incomplete, because all doctrine develops (whereas writings are fixed and cannot develop).
For example, the doctrine of Papal infallibility was not formally written until Vatican-1. But the Church may yet have quite a lot more to teach about this doctrine. The written teaching is just a snapshot of what the Church wished to teach at the time.
The New Testament.