A question on Holy Tradition

[Subrosa]

Does anyone know if there is a definative listing of most or all of the Churches Traditions?

 

[michaelgazin]

I don’t know if there is a better list than the mass itself. Everything from the sacraments, infant baptism, and the holy Eucharist are a result of Tradition. The Bible itself is part of the Tradition. Most Tradition is not extrabiblical revelation at all, rather just an amplified, and more detailed teaching of whats in the Bible.

 

[Sacramentalist]

I don’t think it’s possibleto “list” the Church’s Tradition. The Church’s faith, life, and worship is her Tradition. How do you commit that to paper?

 

[JimG]

Tradition–with a big T–is simply the teaching of the Apostles, or more strictly speaking, the Teaching of Christ handed down to the Apostles, who handed it down to future generations through the magisterium of the Church.

The Bible, after all, is not designed as a catechism, organized topically by subjects and doctrines.

Every church actually teaches from its own tradition, even those who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura. (But only the Catholic Church’s Tradition goes back to Christ and the Apostles.)

Look at it this way: If one REALLY believed that ONLY the bible was necessary, all one would have to do is pass out bibles. No preaching necessary, because the bible is sufficient and self explanatory.

But in fact, “sola scriptura” churches DO preach, and expound, and EXPLAIN particular bible passages, and indeed the entire bible, according to their *own * tradition. And how old is their tradition? A lot less than 2000 years.

For Catholics, Tradition is simply the Teaching of Christ handed down by the Apostles, and the bible is part of that Tradition.

 

[Liberian]

Subrosa:

Does anyone know if there is a definative listing of most or all of the Churches Traditions?

No, there isn’t, any more than there is a definitive listing of what constitutes American culture. We grow up with the Tradition in much the same way as we do with the air we breathe. The Church will implicitly follow something for centuries and then somebody will make an issue of it, at which point the Church sits up and states the Tradition explicitly. But I don’t think it’s even possible to sit down and make a complete list of “This is Tradition, and anything that isn’t on this list isn’t Tradition.”

• Liberian

 

[twiztedseraph]

I went on a trip around Europe once, but was too lazy to write in a diary. Months later I tried to compile the events that happened and found it near impossible. Now that was in the span of less than six months. Try doing it over 2000 years. How can we possibly list all tradition down when each century brings clarification of doctrine? Just a thought probably wrong…

 

[DavidFilmer]

Subrosa:

Does anyone know if there is a definative listing of most or all of the Churches Traditions?

There cannot possibly be such a thing.

For example, some advocate a “Health & Wealth” gospel - Jesus wants you to be strong and rich! But you need to plant a “money tree” with my ministry to reap this harvest. Just send check or money order to …

This is contrary to all Tradition, but the Catholic Church has never dignified such an absurd teacing with an offical response.

Suppose someone said that Jesus was really a basset hound. Tradition says that Jesus was NOT a dog, but I challenge ANYONE to find this written down anywere. Yet, if this idea gained sufficient traction, the Church could officially define this doctrine.

 

[Todd_Easton]

By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, I think most of the oral Apostolic Traditions had found their way into the writings of the various Early Church Fathers. You may wish to check out W. A. Jurgens’ book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1: A source-book of theological and historical passages from the Christian writings of the Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Todd Easton:

By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, I think most of the oral Apostolic Traditions had found their way into the writings of the various Early Church Fathers. You may wish to check out W. A. Jurgens’ book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1: A source-book of theological and historical passages from the Christian writings of the Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras.

The writings of the Early Fathers represent the opinions of various early theologians, not the compendium of Catholic Tradition.

I have Jurgen’s Volume 1 in front of me, and I see in the theological index #803 (“The validity of the Sacraments does not depend on the faith of the minister”) that every single citation is in opposition to this doctrine, and #830 (“Even heretics can baptize validly”) is 9:1 against this doctrine.

The Church’s Tradition is NOT defined by the Early Fathers. Even Cyprian (one of my favorite Saints) was wrong at times (about baptism by heretics, for example).

 

[Subrosa]

DavidFilmer:

The writings of the Early Fathers represent the opinions of various early theologians, not the compendium of Catholic Tradition.

I have Jurgen’s Volume 1 in front of me, and I see in the theological index #803 (“The validity of the Sacraments does not depend on the faith of the minister”) that every single citation is in opposition to this doctrine, and #830 (“Even heretics can baptize validly”) is 9:1 against this doctrine.

The Church’s Tradition is NOT defined by the Early Fathers. Even Cyprian (one of my favorite Saints) was wrong at times (about baptism by heretics, for example).

Well, now! This is interesting! Have you read the Catechism on the topic of Baptism lately? Here’s what it says…

V. Who Can Baptize?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.