Can anyone name some Tradition?

[ccallbeck]

The CCC # 78 says "This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

So I’m trying to figure out what are specific Traditions that were orally passed on from the time of the Apostles, and I can’t seem to find any specifics, searching the CCC and the blogs here.

Are these Traditions: the assumption, the immaculate conception, indulgences, the Eucharist, infant baptism, anointing of the sick, purgatory, the Trinity… These are in the everyday Church practices and are often referenced in scripture (some more clearly than others) Are these big “T” Tradition or little “t” tradition? (please don’t just reply about the Eucharist one, because I know that the bible very clearly supports the Catholic position) Is Tradition summed up basically in everything that makes the Catholic church different from other Protestant churches?

Or does Tradition just mean the Church’s interpretation of Scripture? If anyone can help clarify, I’d appreciate it.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Interpretation of Scripture is an obvious one. All the major Dogmas such as the Trinity would be Tradition because it is not spelled out in Scripture specifically word for word but it has been a belief of the Church that goes back to the Apostles. Any formulation of Doctrine that has been built upon and defined by the Church throughout the centuries may have developed over time, but it has always been believed by the Church from the very beginning and passed on by the Apostles, maybe in the simplest form but as time has passed the Church has defined them.

One way to figure out some of our Tradition is to go through the Catechism and look at all the teachings that you may not find word for word in Scripture, Apostolic Succession, Purgatory, Venial and Mortal sin (things that we often defend against our Protestant brethren ), but they have been believed all along but have also developed. The Creeds are also another thing to look at, these are the statements of Faith that were defined by the Church but were always believed. When you look at how the Son preceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit preceeds from the Father and Son, that is another Traditional belief.

 

[FightingFat]

Tradition comes from the Latin Tradere, which means to hand on. The Apostles hand on to us the Kerygma- the Gospel preached, the core of our faith and from those Traditions we discover more about our loving God. For example:

The first statements of faith were Christological and based on Scripture: “Jesus is the Christ” (Cf. Acts 2:36; 10:36; Col 2:6), “Jesus is Lord” (Cf. 1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:11.), and “Jesus is the Son of God”. (Cf. Acts 9:20; 13:33; Rom 1:4; Heb 4:14.) Latent in this Christological profession was a Trinitarian faith (Cf. Acts 2:33. The Trinity was also implied in the early κήρυγμα; cf. Acts 2:14-39; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43; 13:16-41.) and thus it was natural that the latter evolved from the former.The early professions of faith result from the merging of this dual emanation of the Christological and the Trinitarian, both based on the New Testament. Theology came into being to address the questions that arose from individual interpretations of these professions of faith. Can you see how faith is drawn from the handing on of the basic preaching of the Apostles from this?

 

[Mankney]

The Bible is Tradition. Since New Testament scriptures were not written until many years after the death of Christ, they were passed on by oral Tradition.

 

[ccallbeck]

The Bible is Tradition. Since New Testament scriptures were not written until many years after the death of Christ, they were passed on by oral Tradition.

I can see what you are saying, that the oral Tradition was written down and eventually certain texts were chosen and became the Bible… because scripture stems from Tradition it never contradicts Tradition… but, the CCC in #78-81 speaks about Scripture and Tradition as two SEPERATE (yet complimentary) things. So can you really call the Bible Tradition?

 

[FightingFat]

I can see what you are saying, that the oral Tradition was written down and eventually certain texts were chosen and became the Bible… because scripture stems from Tradition it never contradicts Tradition… but, the CCC in #78-81 speaks about Scripture and Tradition as two SEPERATE (yet complimentary) things. So can you really call the Bible Tradition?

Because the Scripture Jesus knew we call the Old Testament. The New Testament came afterwards.

In any case, the Tradition is the teaching of the Church which is true to the Apostolic preaching, as I attempted to explain. Early Christians knew from Deut. 6 that the LORD is one, so how were they to understand that Jesus was also the LORD? Tradition, true to the apostles found the answers to these questions.

 

[ccallbeck]

The Bible is Tradition. Since New Testament scriptures were not written until many years after the death of Christ, they were passed on by oral Tradition.

You said the Bible is Tradition. Yes, I know all that stuff you said in your next reply, yes the NT came after the OT (the OT being what was scripture for Jesus), and yes Tradition and scripture support each other and oral Tradition explained scripture, but my question is still unanswered:

So is it true when you write “The Bible is Tradition”? The CCC in #78-81 speaks about Scripture and Tradition as two seperate yet complimentary things.

We could say that the Bible is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus etc to Revelation, and you can quote specific parts of it. Can you list some Traditions? I am not writing this because I am skeptical or trying to be cheeky, I am just trying to get some help learning and understanding what is specifically meant by oral tradition.

Like is oral tradition just what you know as Doctriines? Is it the assumption, the immaculate conception, and the sacraments? And/Or is it also incense and albs and stations of the cross and holy water and the sign of the cross…

 

[teachccd]

You said the Bible is Tradition. Yes, I know all that stuff you said in your next reply, yes the NT came after the OT (the OT being what was scripture for Jesus), and yes Tradition and scripture support each other and oral Tradition explained scripture, but my question is still unanswered:

So is it true when you write “The Bible is Tradition”? The CCC in #78-81 speaks about Scripture and Tradition as two seperate yet complimentary things.

We could say that the Bible is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus etc to Revelation, and you can quote specific parts of it. Can you list some Traditions? I am not writing this because I am skeptical or trying to be cheeky, I am just trying to get some help learning and understanding what is specifically meant by oral tradition.

Like is oral tradition just what you know as Doctriines? Is it the assumption, the immaculate conception, and the sacraments? And/Or is it also incense and albs and stations of the cross and holy water and the sign of the cross…

Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures flow from the same wellspring coupled with the Magisterium and completes our single deposit of faith. Inspiration was given to the Church and the members of the Church handed on revelation either by word or by letter. So any dogmatic teachings would either be the result of written Tradition (Scripture) or oral Tradition. Neither can contradict each other since both come from God and are maintained by the Teaching Authority of the Church. (Magisterium) So while some dogmatic teachings may not be explicit in Scripture they are implicit if one were to view the entire typological layout of the revelation.

I could go on a bit but I will just see if this is what you were looking for or am I just blah, blah, blah…You tell me…God Bless…teachccd

 

[COPLAND_3]

So is it true when you write “The Bible is Tradition”? The CCC in #78-81 speaks about Scripture and Tradition as two seperate yet complimentary things.

That is why I would not use that arguement as Scripture being Tradition, because the Tradition that we are talking about is defined by the Church as something as related to Scripture, but it is distinct.

I would also avoid that arguement because I accept the traditional beliefs that many of the Biblical books were actually written by the authors that we attribute them too, and not just a compilation of writings that were only orally transmitted at first. The Early Church Fathers who were close to the Apostles understood the Scriptures to have been written by them.

 

[teachccd]

That is why I would not use that arguement as Scripture being Tradition, because the Tradition that we are talking about is defined by the Church as something as related to Scripture, but it is distinct.

I would also avoid that arguement because I accept the traditional beliefs that many of the Biblical books were actually written by the authors that we attribute them too, and not just a compilation of writings that were only orally transmitted at first. The Early Church Fathers who were close to the Apostles understood the Scriptures to have been written by them.

Yes, but even Moses would have to have received his revelation from oral Tradition since he was not present for much of what he wrote. So Genesis, for example, would have evolved from generations of oral Tradition unless God dictated that book to Moses which most biblical scholars even of old would not subscribe to. Anyway, that’s just my :twocents: …teachccd

 

[Mankney]

Sometimes it is not obvious. Oral Tradition can be all of what you said. Big T tradition is the assumption, the Imaculate Conception, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Purgatory and others. It is what Christ taught the Apostles. It is doctrine or Dogma type stuff. The stuff that can’t be changed. Big T helps us interpret scripture. The communion of Saints is one example. Most Non-Catholics don’t believe in this even though scripture points to it. You mentioned the Eucharist. Again to us it is plainly spelled out in John 6 and Tradition tells us so. Most non-Catholics don’t believe it. Big T tells us for sure this is true. The Sacraments are Big T because they were started by Christ. The Pope, Bishops are Priests are Big T. Believing that Apostolic authority was passed on to successor like the forgiveness of sins.

Little T are some of the examples you cited. Also things like celebrating Christmas on December 25th. They can be cultural things like the Music at Mass, making the sign of the cross before prayer, giving up something we like for Lent and blessing ourselves with Holy Water as we enter the Church.

By the way I only replied once so if you want further explanation from fightingfat he/she will have to answer.

I hope that helps

 

[ccallbeck]

Thank-you Mankney for helping distinguish big T and little t tradition. The other posts have been helpful too.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Yes, but even Moses would have to have received his revelation from oral Tradition since he was not present for much of what he wrote. So Genesis, for example, would have evolved from generations of oral Tradition unless God dictated that book to Moses which most biblical scholars even of old would not subscribe to. Anyway, that’s just my :twocents: …teachccd

God spoke with Moses many times verbally. Just as God told the prophets what was going to happen in the future, God told Moses what happened in the past. We are talking about divine revelation, and that is something that modern day scholars often reject because there is a school of thought that tries to discount miracles of the Bible as well as authorship. But the Early Church Fathers are unananymous in support of the authorship of Moses with the Penteteuch. Unfortunately the ‘scholarship’ that you find in footnotes like the NAB are so liberal that they cause many people to question the reliability of their Faith.

 

[FightingFat]

I think the point here is that the Bible isn’t everything Jesus said, did or taught (Jn 21:25).

The creeds promulgated by the great councils constitute formulations of the faith of the Church as lived in the liturgy, prayers, hymns; the sensus fidei. What the Church believes doesn’t necessitate precise definition unless it is challenged.

Dei Verbum 8 states:

And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).