All the fuss over 'Tradition'...

[chadmyers]

As a former Lutheran (LCMS) (now a revert to the Catholic Church), it was pounded into me (lovingly, and more or less charitably) that Catholics were a little off tilt because they appealed not to scripture alone but also to tradition.

This always puzzled me a little and I never could get a good explanation from my Pastors why our traditions were any more valid than Catholic traditions.

Upon listening to a somewhat recent CAL encore with Karlos titled ‘A Biblical critique of Sola Scriptura’, a thought dawned on me after a Lutheran caller called in and was arguing (in the Greek sense) with the hosts:

During Lutheran services, they go to a building they call a Church. Lutheran Churches are designed a specific way with a specific layout. They have specific liturgical norms they follow according to their Catechism authored by Luther himself.

In this Catechism and during these services they follow very specific theology and understanding or interpretation (Tradition if you will) of sciptures and teachings of early Church fathers.

Lutherans, for example, believe that there is a Triune God in (as far as I’m aware) exact concordance with the Catholic Church (that is, not like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or SDA’s – in fact, I think they even believe in filioque as a matter of contention with the Orthodox Church).

Sola Scriptura is, in fact, a matter of specific Tradition, as is Sola Fide. These are controversial, not widely held beliefs in Christianity and so are the invention of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc and not affirmed directly by the early Christians.

I’m not here to debate Sola Scriptura or Fide, but to assert that these notions, whether right or wrong, are just as much assertions of Tradition within the Lutheran tradition (for example) as certain disputed beliefs in the Catholic Church.

So why then are Protestants contesting Tradition when they have as much, if not more appeals to Tradition in their beliefs that Catholics do?

 

[choosechrist]

Actually Sacred Tradition is not all that simple to understand. For us Catholics we receive the deposit of Faith through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Tradition spelled with a capital T is more than the Liturgy etc, it consists of all the teachings of the early Church, right from the Apostles, through the Early Church Fathers, the Saints, Church Doctrines, Dogmas etc. Just as the Bible reveals God over many thousands of years, so also our understanding of God evolves with time. The Bible cannot be our sole source of understanding God for the simple reason that the Bible does not define its own canon. It required men of authority, who received their authority from Christ to define the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Further to that, understanding the Bible requires that we read it in the light in which it was meant to be understood. This we get from the very tradition that decided the Canon of Sacred Scripture. You can’t have the Bible without the Church and you cannot have the Church without the Bible. Thus Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are our two eyes by which we see and understand God.

While most people mix up traditions of culture or even liturgical customs with Sacred Tradition, it is important to understand the difference before jumping to conclusions.

To understand an event most people would rely on eye witness accounts rather than on the account of someone who came 1500 years later. Therefore, for all the break away Christian groups, they build their houses on very shaky foundations, when they eliminate everything Christian prior to the Reformation. How they risk their immortal souls on one man and his rhetoric is a mystery to me. Why they will not accept the writings of the Early Church Fathers as opposed to the latest pastors is another mystery.

The Church that Christ built was set up at Pentecost. He left it with His authority and Power. For me, I rely on the promise of Christ that His Church will never come under the power of hell. Most other churches have come under the power of division, so that should speak for their traditions, with small t.

The only Church that can trace her origins back to Christ and the apostles is the Catholic Church, and most people cannot swallow that. Well, they could not swallow the fact of Christ’s divinity, so why would they believe the Divine-human Church?

Read the following article to understand Sacred Tradition newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm, but know in your heart that the Church always existed prior to the Sacred writings. Till about 40AD there weren’t any written manuscripts only oral proclamations. It was only after 384 AD that these writings were fixed as the canon of Sacred Scripture, so we need to ask the question then if people cannot accept the Church that Christ set up, why do they accept the Sacred Book that the Church defined? How do they defend their faith set up on shifting sand?

 

[JonNC]

As a former Lutheran (LCMS) (now a revert to the Catholic Church), it was pounded into me (lovingly, and more or less charitably) that Catholics were a little off tilt because they appealed not to scripture alone but also to tradition.

This always puzzled me a little and I never could get a good explanation from my Pastors why our traditions were any more valid than Catholic traditions.

Upon listening to a somewhat recent CAL encore with Karlos titled ‘A Biblical critique of Sola Scriptura’, a thought dawned on me after a Lutheran caller called in and was arguing (in the Greek sense) with the hosts:

During Lutheran services, they go to a building they call a Church. Lutheran Churches are designed a specific way with a specific layout. They have specific liturgical norms they follow according to their Catechism authored by Luther himself.

In this Catechism and during these services they follow very specific theology and understanding or interpretation (Tradition if you will) of sciptures and teachings of early Church fathers.

Lutherans, for example, believe that there is a Triune God in (as far as I’m aware) exact concordance with the Catholic Church (that is, not like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or SDA’s – in fact, I think they even believe in filioque as a matter of contention with the Orthodox Church).

Sola Scriptura is, in fact, a matter of specific Tradition, as is Sola Fide. These are controversial, not widely held beliefs in Christianity and so are the invention of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc and not affirmed directly by the early Christians.
I’m not here to debate Sola Scriptura or Fide, but to assert that these notions, whether right or wrong, are just as much assertions of Tradition within the Lutheran tradition (for example) as certain disputed beliefs in the Catholic Church.

So why then are Protestants contesting Tradition when they have as much, if not more appeals to Tradition in their beliefs that Catholics do?

Just some thoughts as I read your post, motivated by a similar mindset as yours, this being that for Lutherans, Tradition plays a prominent role. The Augsburg Confession supports the proper usage of tradition:

Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages.
1] Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.
2] Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation.
3] They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and 4] days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.

There were specific concerns the reformers had about Tradition, and in short, said it cannot contradict scripture. Linked here is a particuarly good article that, for me at least, gives a rather classic view of sola scriptura.

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

And in response to the part of your post I bolded, the article disputes that Luther simply invented SS out thin air.

I might finally say that Lutherans need to do a better job of understanding where our tradition comes from, how it is closely linked to Catholic tradition, and that tradition is not a dirty word.
In some ways you are correct, Lutherans accept the early councils, the three creeds, and our Lutheran Confessional documents, to rightly understand the true faith. This is Tradition, and to the extent that this doesn’t sound like Bible-only, solo scriptura, personal interpretation forms of Christianity, good, as I don’t believe that is what Luther, Chemnitz, et al, had in mind in the first place.

Jon

PS: It is my firm prayer, chadmyers, that the Holy Spirit bless you in your new faith communion. I also pray that some day changing from Lutheran to Catholic, Catholic to Lutheran, will be no change at all.