C
cominghome1966
Guest
Tell me what you think about this. I thought of it months ago but would like to bounce it off people here.
One of the difficult points of contention between Catholics and Protestants is the debate over tradition vs scripture. Protestants hold the view that scripture carries more weight and Catholics hold that we would not know what Scripture is except for Tradition telling us.
I wonder if I found a unique way to show that the Catholic view is the correct view. It is very simple and tangible. First let’s lay a bit of groundwork and define “tradition.” Here is what I found on Wikipedia:
“A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past. Common examples include holidays or impractical but socially meaningful clothes (like lawyer wigs or military officer spurs), but the idea has also been applied to social norms such as greetings. Traditions can persist and evolve for thousands of years—the word “tradition” itself derives from the Latin tradere or traderer literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping.”
Let’s take this definition and apply it to written languages and alphabets. They have symbolic meaning and have been passed down within groups or societies. The purpose of alphabets and written languages is to transmit or hand over ideas. The fact that I can write this, and you can understand it, is due to a tradition surrounding what constitutes the alphabet and how it works to form words, sentences, paragraphs, complete thoughts, etc.
In order to communicate in a way that others can understand, the tradition for each language must be followed. If I violated the tradition too much you wouldn’t know what I meant. For example, if you saw a string of characters like this:
kflsjkl02w3kvvfjei58gjkkhjosuior94909924jgbn;oto365265yuvjhw4y5i45hvhj2ysdro
…it would be difficult to know what it meant, or if it meant anything at all. It might be some sort of code, it might mean that the person who wrote it doesn’t understand how to read or write (aka, how to use the tradition that governs the alphabet), it might mean the person is incapable of using it, it might mean that the person’s head landed on the keyboard from falling asleep, or it might be a different language with its own tradition. Not following or understanding the tradition creates confusion.
This means that without the tradition of a written alphabet and a written language, Scripture would not exist. The very practical requirement to read (and therefore understand) Scripture requires a tradition involving our language and alphabet. Plus, the people who originally wrote the scriptures were relying on their language’s tradition to write them down.
In this very practical sense, the tradition regarding written language and alphabets precedes and supports scripture, not the other way around.
Is this is a tangible way to understand why tradition must precede scripture? Seems like it to me but I might be overlooking something.
One of the difficult points of contention between Catholics and Protestants is the debate over tradition vs scripture. Protestants hold the view that scripture carries more weight and Catholics hold that we would not know what Scripture is except for Tradition telling us.
I wonder if I found a unique way to show that the Catholic view is the correct view. It is very simple and tangible. First let’s lay a bit of groundwork and define “tradition.” Here is what I found on Wikipedia:
“A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past. Common examples include holidays or impractical but socially meaningful clothes (like lawyer wigs or military officer spurs), but the idea has also been applied to social norms such as greetings. Traditions can persist and evolve for thousands of years—the word “tradition” itself derives from the Latin tradere or traderer literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping.”
Let’s take this definition and apply it to written languages and alphabets. They have symbolic meaning and have been passed down within groups or societies. The purpose of alphabets and written languages is to transmit or hand over ideas. The fact that I can write this, and you can understand it, is due to a tradition surrounding what constitutes the alphabet and how it works to form words, sentences, paragraphs, complete thoughts, etc.
In order to communicate in a way that others can understand, the tradition for each language must be followed. If I violated the tradition too much you wouldn’t know what I meant. For example, if you saw a string of characters like this:
kflsjkl02w3kvvfjei58gjkkhjosuior94909924jgbn;oto365265yuvjhw4y5i45hvhj2ysdro
…it would be difficult to know what it meant, or if it meant anything at all. It might be some sort of code, it might mean that the person who wrote it doesn’t understand how to read or write (aka, how to use the tradition that governs the alphabet), it might mean the person is incapable of using it, it might mean that the person’s head landed on the keyboard from falling asleep, or it might be a different language with its own tradition. Not following or understanding the tradition creates confusion.
This means that without the tradition of a written alphabet and a written language, Scripture would not exist. The very practical requirement to read (and therefore understand) Scripture requires a tradition involving our language and alphabet. Plus, the people who originally wrote the scriptures were relying on their language’s tradition to write them down.
In this very practical sense, the tradition regarding written language and alphabets precedes and supports scripture, not the other way around.
Is this is a tangible way to understand why tradition must precede scripture? Seems like it to me but I might be overlooking something.
