An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[CatholicGuyNY]

Since Chester has resorted to vulgar comments to deflect, I’ll repost for a response from another Catholic.

I read the CCC as stating Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are related but seperate.
Yes, SS was passed down orally but it was never considered “sacred tradition”

Asked and answered:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7071642&postcount=339

 

[Todd520]

Asked and answered:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7071642&postcount=339

Thanks CatholicGuy,
I apologize for missing that reply. I see how Sacred Scripture came from Living Tradition.

Here is the crux of my problem - what is the name for CC doctrine outisde of the Bible? I was mistakenly calling this Sacred Tradition.
I’m referring to the papal edicts, creeds and teachings that have been cannonized(?) as official church doctrine but are extra-biblical.

 

[LongJourney]

See my sig. This is a compilation of Tradition.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks CatholicGuy,
I apologize for missing that reply. I see how Sacred Scripture came from Living Tradition.

Here is the crux of my problem - what is the name for CC doctrine outisde of the Bible? I was mistakenly calling this Sacred Tradition.
I’m referring to the papal edicts, creeds and teachings that have been cannonized(?) as official church doctrine but are extra-biblical.

Todd, wow, its amazing what can happen when you’re away from your computer for a few hours. It looks like most of your questions have been adequately answered so I won’t rehash those posts.

As to the question above, I would have to say (and I’m open to correction here) that all of the documents stated above would be considered a part of Tradition. Tradition encompasses the life of the Church; the creeds, the liturgies, the writings, the teachings etc. Prior to the canonization of Scripture (393 AD) the truths given to us through divine revelation were held in the Tradition of the Church. So when we say that Sacred Scripture originated in Sacred Tradition, we are making a true statement. The Bible certainly didn’t fall out of the sky. It was passed down orally and and eventually written down as the years past. Those writings determined to contain divinely revealed truth, (as measured against what was known as divinely revealed truth in Tradition) were canonized and became the New Testament. It is why Sacred Tradition is, and must be, considered on an equal par with Sacred Scripture. They originate from the same source, Christ himself.

 

[Esdra]

…]

I’m no expert but I would assume that the sacred tradition is now encompassed in the catechism. The point of here on sacred tradition is understanding that sacred scripture does not contain everything that was intended to be passed down and carried on by the Church.

Hi,

Thank you. I think this answers my question.

As I have written before, I already know (through various conversions with Catholics here in CAF) that the SS don’t contain the “fulness of the gospel”.

So you could say that the CCC is more or less identical with the ST handed down to us by the Apostles. Because otherwise: if we are to obey the ST the same as the Holy Bible - where would we know from?
But what about the saints and the mary-dogmas? Are they also part of the ST and/or written in the CCC?

Chestertonrulez mentioned before that Jesus taught the Apostels after his resurrection 40 days and that these teachings are not in the Bible (Acts 1:3). -

Much of it is written down, but not all of it is contained in scripture.

For example:

3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Everything that Jesus taught the apostles over these 40 days is not in scripture.

Here’s one possible teaching that may have come from this time:

…] Pope Clemens, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

So my problem is: Do these teachings also stand somewhere - or are they lost sort of. - Because I guess this also belongs to the ST.
Because if you say that the ST is identical with the CCC - where would I find then the teachings of Jesus in these 40 days?
Same thing when Paul writes in 1 Tim 3:14-15 that he will come to him and his community (and I suppose teach them).

Could you say that if you want to know all ST that you also have to read the “apocryphal” letters of the first bishops for example, like Chesertonrules mentioned “Pope Clemens, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44”? But then how do I know what is Catholic and what is Gnostic for example (I know i.e. that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic)?
Or does this also say in the CCC?

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[Todd520]

Todd, wow, its amazing what can happen when you’re away from your computer for a few hours. It looks like most of your questions have been adequately answered so I won’t rehash those posts.

As to the question above, I would have to say (and I’m open to correction here) that all of the documents stated above would be considered a part of Tradition. Tradition encompasses the life of the Church; the creeds, the liturgies, the writings, the teachings etc. Prior to the canonization of Scripture (393 AD) the truths given to us through divine revelation were held in the Tradition of the Church. So when we say that Sacred Scripture originated in Sacred Tradition, we are making a true statement. The Bible certainly didn’t fall out of the sky. It was passed down orally and and eventually written down as the years past. Those writings determined to contain divinely revealed truth, (as measured against what was known as divinely revealed truth in Tradition) were canonized and became the New Testament. It is why Sacred Tradition is, and must be, considered on an equal par with Sacred Scripture. They originate from the same source, Christ himself.

I’m sorry, my question may not be clear, so I’ll rephrase

I get that Sacred Tradition encompasses Sacred Scripture. Is there a proper name for the CC Doctrine = Sacred Tradition - Bible?

I’m only looking for the doctrine ‘label’ or confirmation that a precise name does not exist, for this subset of doctrine .

 

[Esdra]

I’m sorry, my question may not be clear, so I’ll rephrase

I get that Sacred Tradition encompasses Sacred Scripture. Is there a proper name for the CC Doctrine = Sacred Tradition - Bible?

I’m only looking for the doctrine ‘label’ or confirmation that a precise name does not exist, for this subset of doctrine .

See my last two posts, todd.

Do you mean Catholic Church Catechism? This is a sort of “Doctrine and Covenants” (to name it in LDS manner).

Esdra

 

[Todd520]

To be clear, I’m looking for the Catholic name/label for this subset of doctrine

I’m sorry, my question may not be clear, so I’ll rephrase

I get that Sacred Tradition encompasses Sacred Scripture for the CC. Is there a proper name for the CC Doctrine = Sacred Tradition - Bible?

I’m only looking for the doctrine ‘label’ or confirmation that a precise name does not exist, for this subset of doctrine .

 

[Todd520]

See my last two posts, todd.

Do you mean Catholic Church Catechism? This is a sort of “Doctrine and Covenants” (to name it in LDS manner).

Esdra

Clearly the Catechism references the whole set of CC doctrine, but I didn’t think the catechism was considered actual doctrine,
I thought the CCC was more of a study guide or cliff notes to official doctrine recored over the centuries.

 

[Esdra]

Clearly the Catechism references the whole set of CC doctrine, but I didn’t think the catechism was considered actual doctrine,
I thought the CCC was more of a study guide or cliff notes to official doctrine recored over the centuries.

Well, I am not really a Catholic. So I don’t know for sure.
But I guess “Study guide for the official doctrien recorded over the centuries”, is quite a good description for the CCC.

As far as I know, there is no other official document except the CCC. - I think what you are looking for IS the Catechism…

Esdra

 

[SteveVH]

As I have written before, I already know (through various conversions with Catholics here in CAF) that the SS don’t contain the “fulness of the gospel”.

That is not what we teach. The SS’s do contain the fullness of the Gospel because they contain salvation history which has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He is God’s only word and the fullness of the Gospel is found in him only. The problem is the interpretation of what is contained in SS. We are guided by the Church’s Magisterium who we believe is protected from error in its interpretation as promised by Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. All non-Catholic Christians (save EO) vary from this truth to one degree or another resulting in thousand upon thousands of denominations.

So you could say that the CCC is more or less identical with the ST handed down to us by the Apostles. Because otherwise: if we are to obey the ST the same as the Holy Bible - where would we know from?

The CCC is a great synopsis of both ST and SS, but certainly does not contain everything stored in the treasury of ST. It does however, contain everything that we believe. As to what to obey, as Catholics, we must obey the Church who speaks with the voice of Christ. We accept both equally and find no conflict between the two.

But what about the saints and the mary-dogmas? Are they also part of the ST and/or written in the CCC?

Yes. The Marian dogmas had been part of Tradition and developed over time. As for the Immaculate Conception, this was actually revealed to us by Mary herself. As to the Assumption, this had been believed by the very early Church. The difference in the Marian dogmas and other teachings is that they were spoken from the Chair of Peter, or ex cathedra, meaning they were spoke infallibly. An infallible teaching must be accepted by the entire Church, no ifs, ands or butts.

Chestertonrulez mentioned before that Jesus taught the Apostels after his resurrection 40 days and that these teachings are not in the Bible (Acts 1:3). -

Even the Bible states that it does not contain everything. You have to consider the source of these comments which were from the third successor to St. Peter in 98 AD, right around the time that the last books of the NT were being written. This is a great example of Tradition. The deposit of faith given to the Church was alive and well within the life and practice of the Church several hundred years before the NT was canonized.

So my problem is: Do these teachings also stand somewhere - or are they lost sort of. - Because I guess this also belongs to the ST.
Because if you say that the ST is identical with the CCC - where would I find then the teachings of Jesus in these 40 days?
Same thing when Paul writes in 1 Tim 3:14-15 that he will come to him and his community (and I suppose teach them).

While the CCC contains Tradition it cannot be said that they are identical, as if, every facet of Tradition is written down. The CCC also contains Scripture, but not every word of scripture is written down in it. You should read the Didache and the early Church Fathers if you want a good idea of Tradition.

Could you say that if you want to know all ST that you also have to read the “apocryphal” letters of the first bishops for example, like Chesertonrules mentioned “Pope Clemens, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44”? But then how do I know what is Catholic and what is Gnostic for example (I know i.e. that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic)?
Or does this also say in the CCC?

In Christ,
Esdra

I’m not sure one can know “all ST”. The best way to understand Tradition is to become Catholic and be a part of the life of the Church.

God bless.

 

[PaulDupre]

As far as I know, there is no other official document except the CCC. - I think what you are looking for IS the Catechism…

Esdra

All of the documents released by the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church are “official documents”. Much of the CCC is quoted from the Council of Trent and the 1st and 2nd Vatican councils, among other councils.

The 16 documents from The Second Vatican Council are online here.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hi,

So my problem is: Do these teachings also stand somewhere - or are they lost sort of. - Because I guess this also belongs to the ST.
Because if you say that the ST is identical with the CCC - where would I find then the teachings of Jesus in these 40 days?
Same thing when Paul writes in 1 Tim 3:14-15 that he will come to him and his community (and I suppose teach them).

Could you say that if you want to know all ST that you also have to read the “apocryphal” letters of the first bishops for example, like Chesertonrules mentioned “Pope Clemens, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44”? But then how do I know what is Catholic and what is Gnostic for example (I know i.e. that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic)?
Or does this also say in the CCC?

In Christ,
Esdra

As Catholics, we believe that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into ALL Truth. We trust that Jesus is with the Church even today as he promised he would be.

The Catholic Church has been quite explicit in defining true doctrine and combatting heresy. If you have a question about a particular writing, gnostic or otherwise, you can find the answer with a google search.

The CCC is the norm for Catholic Teaching.

 

[Todd520]

I’m sorry, my question may not be clear, so I’ll rephrase

I get that Sacred Tradition encompasses Sacred Scripture. Is there a proper name for the CC Doctrine = Sacred Tradition - Bible?

I’m only looking for the doctrine ‘label’ or confirmation that a precise name does not exist, for this subset of doctrine .

I’ll try answer my own question using wiki on CC Doctrine

The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit reveals God’s truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.[citation needed] Sacred Scripture consists of the 73 book Catholic Bible. This is made up of the 46 books found in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint[214]—and the 27 New Testament writings first found in the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and listed in Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter.[215] [note 5]

Sacred Tradition consists of those teachings believed by the Church to have been handed down since the time of the Apostles.[216] Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are collectively known as the “deposit of faith” (depositum fidei). These are in turn interpreted by the Magisterium (from magister, Latin for “teacher”), the Church’s teaching authority, which is exercised by the pope and the College of Bishops in union with the pope.[217]

The wiki article seperates Sacred Tradition from Sacred Scripture, which is what I originally stated but forum posters told me I was wrong.

I urge Catholics to post a correction to this wiki article.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m always frustrated how the Catholic definition of Christian swings on Holy Tradition instead of Holy Scripture.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). It also teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13). Everyone agrees the Father is God. Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19). How can we hold all four truths except by saying all three are somehow the one God?
Jesus tells his apostles to baptize “in the name [notice, singular, not plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). This is a proof-text: three distinct Persons united in the one divine name. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” We see this same unity of divine Persons in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11, Ephesians 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2–3. All three have always been and always will be. Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13, John 1:1-14, Isaiah 41:4, 1 Timothy 1:17.

Joseph Smith invented the Melchisedech Priesthood, polygamy, and in 1844 started teaching about another god; a god not like the one in the New Testament. Mormons do not worship the God of Christianity, so they are not Christian. Mormons started as Christians until Joseph Smith took them into apostasy.

Scripture is part of Tradition and they do not conflict with each other, except in Mormonism

 

[Todd520]

Scripture is part of Tradition and they do not conflict with each other, except in Mormonism

Right, and I’m urging you to get the wiki article corrected to reflect what you said.

The wiki clearly seperates Scripture from Tradition, while the posters here taught me Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Stephen168]

Right, and I’m urging you to get the wiki article corrected to reflect what you said.

The wiki clearly seperates Scripture from Tradition, while the posters here taught me Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.

Oh, I understand now. This whole scripture/tradition argument is a deflection so you don’t have to defend the Mormon Doctrines that Joseph Smith made up, which conflict with the New Testament.

I wondered why you are trying so hard not to understand.

 

[Todd520]

Oh, I understand now. This whole scripture/tradition argument is a deflection so you don’t have to defend the Mormon Doctrines that Joseph Smith made up, which conflict with the New Testament.

I wondered why you are trying so hard not to understand.

No you are being silly,
My usage of SS vs ST has been criticized on several occasions. Since poor usage is just a distraction, I’ve been working to clarify my understanding of SS vs ST.

You’ve told me SS is a subset of ST. Since this conflicts the Wiki, i’m suggesting a correction. What is odd about this?
Unless the wiki is actually correct

Now to your deflection, what Joseph Smith doctrine have you raised that i’ve neglected to answer?

 

[dianaiad]

…his religion says “Catholic”…

Yes, it does. I should have been more clear. I need a Catholic who can point to official doctrine/dogma, and have all the other Catholics agree with him.

I have to be honest here; I HAVE had other Catholics, right here in this forum, mention that they are not biblical inerrantists. So while I have absolutely no intention of telling him that he doesn’t believe what he says he does–is what he is saying doctrine, or am I misunderstanding the whole thing?

…**
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44 **

erm…that doesn’t address the innerancy of the scriptures. This addresses the role Holy Tradition has in concert with the scriptures–and the role the church has held in preserving those scriptures.

Not exactly the same thing as the claim that every translation of the bible we have now is perfect, is it?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Yes, it does. I should have been more clear. I need a Catholic who can point to official doctrine/dogma, and have all the other Catholics agree with him.

I have to be honest here; I HAVE had other Catholics, right here in this forum, mention that they are not biblical inerrantists. So while I have absolutely no intention of telling him that he doesn’t believe what he says he does–is what he is saying doctrine, or am I misunderstanding the whole thing?

erm…that doesn’t address the innerancy of the scriptures. This addresses the role Holy Tradition has in concert with the scriptures–and the role the church has held in preserving those scriptures.

Not exactly the same thing as the claim that every translation of the bible we have now is perfect, is it?

The post of yours that I was responding to did not have anything to do with the inerrancy of scripture, but the relationship between Tradition and Scripture:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7068580&postcount=314
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7068610&postcount=316