Church tradition

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Looking over these posts, let me try to clarify something.

It is important for Protestants to understand that the Reformation separated something that is essentially whole.
The view taught and practiced in the NT, ECFs, Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church, and continuously for 1500 years prior to the Reformation is that God’s word (divine revelation) is transmitted authoritatively and normatively down through time by the combined and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic, Apostolic Church. (=STC)

The reformers protesting against STC separated Scripture from its native context of Tradition and Church and set the results of their interpretation of Scripture alone over against the content of the Catholic faith transmitted by STC including STC itself.

Consequently often when Protestants ask about Tradition as it has always been understood in the undivided Church East and West they tend to start with the results of their interpretation of the Bible alone as yielding the content of the faith and conclude whatever differs from those results must have been added by a separate and independent thing called Tradition (and another one for that matter, Church).

This is exactly the opposite of how it actually works. STC, as indicated, is and has always been united and interrelated.

Regarding the transmission of God’s word, a head on presentation of why it is theologically more reasonable to adopt the protesting position of sola scriptura (SS) and abandon the historically prior position of STC continuously held by the CC East and West and by the EOC is generally not given by Protestant theologians and apologists. It might be useful to consider this as well. The burden is on the one making the protest: Why should one adopt the protesting theological position?

This generally leads to a circular framing of the issue:
Start with SS.
Discover that the results of SS differ from those of STC in history.
Conclude that therefore SS is correct and that Tradition and Church have added to God’s word making STC false.

 

[jjsmity]

How do you tell the bible is from God?

We decide exactly as they did in Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles.

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate… (Acts 15:6-7)

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church… (Acts 15:22)

The Bishops of the Church get together, pray about it, discuss it, pray some more and come to a decision. Sometimes they vote. Just like in the Bible.

-Tim-

so nothing that actually qualifies or sets apart from knowing what is or is not? I was looking for something like based on historical reasons etc.

Looking over these posts, let me try to clarify something.

It is important for Protestants to understand that the Reformation separated something that is essentially whole.
The view taught and practiced in the NT, ECFs, Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church, and continuously for 1500 years prior to the Reformation is that God’s word (divine revelation) is transmitted authoritatively and normatively down through time by the combined and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic, Apostolic Church. (=STC)

The reformers protesting against STC separated Scripture from its native context of Tradition and Church and set the results of their interpretation of Scripture alone over against the content of the Catholic faith transmitted by STC including STC itself.

Consequently often when Protestants ask about Tradition as it has always been understood in the undivided Church East and West they tend to start with the results of their interpretation of the Bible alone as yielding the content of the faith and conclude whatever differs from those results must have been added by a separate and independent thing called Tradition (and another one for that matter, Church).

This is exactly the opposite of how it actually works. STC, as indicated, is and has always been united and interrelated.

Regarding the transmission of God’s word, a head on presentation of why it is theologically more reasonable to adopt the protesting position of sola scriptura (SS) and abandon the historically prior position of STC continuously held by the CC East and West and by the EOC is generally not given by Protestant theologians and apologists. It might be useful to consider this as well. The burden is on the one making the protest: Why should one adopt the protesting theological position?

This generally leads to a circular framing of the issue:
Start with SS.
Discover that the results of SS differ from those of STC in history.
Conclude that therefore SS is correct and that Tradition and Church have added to God’s word making STC false.

I may have missed it, but i did not see anything on how or reasons why certain beliefs are considers “tradition”. You guys all like to see to debate and i like that, but not why i am here, their are debates to watch on subjects you guys are claiming among scholors and i would recommend, i am hear to learn catholic doctrine not to try and prove a point, my op would be far different.

 

[fhansen]

so nothing that actually qualifies or sets apart from knowing what is or is not? I was looking for something like based on historical reasons etc.

The Church, when defending infant baptism, for example, by Tradition, maintains that this practice was the norm for Christians everywhere since time immemorial. IOW, there was never a time when it was done otherwise-both east and west, BTW.

 

[Gorgias]

I may have missed it, but i did not see anything on how or reasons why certain beliefs are considers “tradition”.

This seems to betray a misunderstanding of what the Church means by “Sacred Tradition”. Would you mind sharing your understanding of what this term means in the context of the Catholic Church, so that we understand where you’re coming from?

 

[JoeT777]

do science and bible contradict… no never does

That’s exactly why the Catholics anathematized Galileo wasn’t it? Can you believe the impetuous of the man? Scriptures say the heavens revolve around the earth, don’t they?

JoeT

 

[TimothyH]

so nothing that actually qualifies or sets apart from knowing what is or is not? I was looking for something like based on historical reasons etc.

As a Catholic, I would simply say that the Holy Spirit guides the decisions of the Church. That is enough for a man of faith.

Now that you mention it, there is a history of all the councils starting with the one recorded in Acts 15. That’s a pretty good track record.

-Tim-

 

[jjsmity]

The Church, when defending infant baptism, for example, by Tradition, maintains that this practice was the norm for Christians everywhere since time immemorial. IOW, there was never a time when it was done otherwise-both east and west, BTW.

so than wouldn’t pointing out 6 day creation was believed since the begging equally qualify as tradition?

This seems to betray a misunderstanding of what the Church means by “Sacred Tradition”. Would you mind sharing your understanding of what this term means in the context of the Catholic Church, so that we understand where you’re coming from?

I was hoping a catholic could better understand and help me reason for thread] , so far not so much, they seem to not really know. Maybe the ccc will define for me and i just have not got their yet.

That’s exactly why the Catholics anathematized Galileo wasn’t it? Can you believe the impetuous of the man? Scriptures say the heavens revolve around the earth, don’t they?

JoeT

well you would have to show me were? pm me please and i will help correct your mistake as bible does not.

concerning Galileo, we should make sure its true history we tell.

shows that ‘Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.’
creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography

“it has been known for a long time that a major part of the churches intilectuals were on the side of galileo, while the clearest opostion to him came from secular ideas”
Giorgio de santillana 1902-1974 philosapher/historian of scince MIT the crime of galalio p 14 U chicago press 1955

As a Catholic, I would simply say that the Holy Spirit guides the decisions of the Church. That is enough for a man of faith.

Now that you mention it, there is a history of all the councils starting with the one recorded in Acts 15. That’s a pretty good track record.

-Tim-

just as it does the mormon church and jahovas witness etc

i believe 100% holy spirit is truth and conveys only truth, man not so confident. So I am looking for what is traditions that is suppose to be equal to gods word, what makes tradition tradition how do we tell?

good record councils? I think you should reread your history. If councils is infallible than the church is not it has had to go back and “correct” certain councils. But i am not asking about when were/how something at a council is declared tradition, but what is used to decide tradition.

 

[fhansen]

so than wouldn’t pointing out 6 day creation was believed since the begging equally qualify as tradition?

No, that was the opinion of some ECFs, obviously not any kind of final opinion of the church as it was never infallibly defined as such. Even the opinions of the most important Catholic thinkers, arguably Augustine and Aquinas, are not accepted in their entirety by the Church. Aside from that, the Church’s dogmas are only oriented towards teachings on faith and morals-that which has to do with the salvation of man.

 

[JoeT777]

do science and bible contradict… no never does
jjsmity;12919968:

well you would have to show me where? pm me please and i will help correct your mistake as bible does not.

concerning Galileo, we should make sure its true history we tell.

shows that ‘Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.’
creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography

“it has been known for a long time that a major part of the churches intilectuals were on the side of galileo, while the clearest opostion to him came from secular ideas”
Giorgio de santillana 1902-1974 philosapher/historian of scince MIT the crime of galalio p 14 U chicago press 1955

You’ve made my point. Most Protestants criticize the Church for the actions taken against Galileo not realizing it was a failing in discipline. Rather, they criticize, the Catholic persecuted Galileo for being a scientist. But, now as then, in the persons Fr. Tommaso Caccini and the Duchess de Medici literalists today believe science cannot contradict our understanding of Scripture. Both the Duchess and Fr. Caccini had a firm grasp of Scripture as do many today - yet they were wrong.

So, we hear today from the Protestant that God created the earth exactly 6,015 years, 20 hours, 16 minutes, and 18 seconds ago from those same literalists - do you not see the hypocrisy?

You might recall that we believe that God created the heavens and the earth in His perfect order. Science then explores the perfections of God’s nature. Science isn’t the purview of those who don’t believe in God, rather even the atheistic scientist serves to reveal God’s Truth.

JoeT

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I may have missed it, but i did not see anything on how or reasons why certain beliefs are considers “tradition”. You guys all like to see to debate and i like that, but not why i am here, their are debates to watch on subjects you guys are claiming among scholors and i would recommend, i am hear to learn catholic doctrine not to try and prove a point, my op would be far different.

As I suggested in the post above, the information I provided is crucial for any informed understanding of how God’s word is transmitted in the view of the CC East and West and the EOC, i.e., by STC.

Let me try to connect it. Keep in mind what I said in my post above.

(1) Tradition, viewed through the lens of SS as an isolated addition to the results of one’s own interpretation of Scripture alone here in 2015, is not infallible. Infallibility is a charism given to the Church living in the context of apostolic apostolic tradition and Scripture. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14 also v 12) and the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). She is well-equipped to preserve the oral apostolic word. The clearest exercise of this is in the Ecumenical Councils after the pattern of the apostles in Acts “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:8).

(2) Tradition (within the whole of STC) is found in what are often referred to as the “monuments of Tradition.” These include:

(a) consent among the Fathers of the Church --early Christian writers who are a witness of the life and teaching of the Church going back to the apostles.
(b) the teaching of the magisterium, most importantly, Ecumenical Councils
(c) the Liturgies of the church throughout time
(d) the Doctors of the Church
(e) ordinary expressions of the Christian life in actions and customs
(f) Sacred canons and sacred customs
(g) the saints (as bearers of tradition)
(h) theologians

(3) It is the coherence of all three S, T, and C that assures that a given monument of tradition is an apostolic teaching or follows from apostolic teaching. Included in STC is the charism of discernment on the part of the Church as to what belongs to the word of God and what does not as in (1) above. A great example of this is the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.

 

[TimothyH]

just as it does the mormon church and jahovas witness etc

i believe 100% holy spirit is truth and conveys only truth, man not so confident. So I am looking for what is traditions that is suppose to be equal to gods word, what makes tradition tradition how do we tell?

good record councils? I think you should reread your history. If councils is infallible than the church is not it has had to go back and “correct” certain councils. But i am not asking about when were/how something at a council is declared tradition, but what is used to decide tradition.

The Mormon Church was started by Joseph Smith on April 6, 1830. The Jehovah’s Witness cult was started by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870’s.

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ in 33 AD. Every Bishop can trace his office back to one of the Apostles and every teaching can be traced back to Jesus’ teaching.

*We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. (Acts 15:27)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)*

Sacred Tradition is transmitted, among other ways, through word of mouth, just like it says in the Bible.

That’s all I can offer and I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

-Tim-

 

[grannymh]

I am proposing the bible is the word of god, and relabel source for what it says, creation happened as god plainly said in genesis. This does not contradict science in anyway or the early church fathers, it does with evolution and millions of years. We cannot talk on this anymore pm me if you wish i dont want to get in trouble it has already happened just for asking questions on this topic.

There are some great posts before this one which address the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth regarding duly defined and properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines. Foundational doctrines do flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Searching out “Church traditions” including liturgy and poetry, and studying every word written by all the Early Church Fathers and their successors are part of the long intense preparations for the major Ecumenical Church Councils. Please read previous posts on the Councils. The authority for these Councils is found in chapter 14, Gospel of John.

The nitty-gritty is that when it comes to the realm of natural science, no matter what
definition or description is used, pure scientific conclusions and interpretations do not become Catholic doctrines. At the same time, natural science is considered a gift from God which benefits humanity especially in the medical arena. This means that when we learn about our peerless species, we have two areas of information. One is the search for information about our decomposing anatomy and the other is the search for information about our ultimate goal which is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. When we update ourselves regarding current science, we discover its interpretation that large populations are the originating source of the human species. This scientific position directly conflicts with the Catholic doctrine that all of us are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, a population of two.

We do not need to discuss all the twists and turns in natural science. Please refer to the top of this forum and this Sticky Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

Divine Revelation always trumps.

 

[jjsmity]

No, that was the opinion of some ECFs, obviously not any kind of final opinion of the church as it was never infallibly defined as such. Even the opinions of the most important Catholic thinkers, arguably Augustine and Aquinas, are not accepted in their entirety by the Church. Aside from that, the Church’s dogmas are only oriented towards teachings on faith and morals-that which has to do with the salvation of man.

I think you missed what i was saying. I was saying other subjects seem to be declared because most fathers believed it [was reason given] so i asked why not young earth creation as that was majority overwhelmingly and cc admits. I am not hear to say what has been declared but why are things declared. But just for your info the topic of evolution does have large impact on salvation.

You’ve made my point. Most Protestants criticize the Church for the actions taken against Galileo not realizing it was a failing in discipline. Rather, they criticize, the Catholic persecuted Galileo for being a scientist. But, now as then, in the persons Fr. Tommaso Caccini and the Duchess de Medici literalists today believe science cannot contradict our understanding of Scripture. Both the Duchess and Fr. Caccini had a firm grasp of Scripture as do many today - yet they were wrong.

So, we hear today from the Protestant that God created the earth exactly 6,015 years, 20 hours, 16 minutes, and 18 seconds ago from those same literalists - do you not see the hypocrisy?

You might recall that we believe that God created the heavens and the earth in His perfect order. Science then explores the perfections of God’s nature. Science isn’t the purview of those who don’t believe in God, rather even the atheistic scientist serves to reveal God’s Truth.

JoeT

god told us he created in recent past so i believe him. Not sure what hypocrisy your referring to. Protestants follow the bible, if the church goes against it than we would object yes. the rest i dont disagree with science is great, evolution is contrary to it.

 

[jjsmity]

As I suggested in the post above, the information I provided is crucial for any informed understanding of how God’s word is transmitted in the view of the CC East and West and the EOC, i.e., by STC.

Let me try to connect it. Keep in mind what I said in my post above.

(1) Tradition, viewed through the lens of SS as an isolated addition to the results of one’s own interpretation of Scripture alone here in 2015, is not infallible. Infallibility is a charism given to the Church living in the context of apostolic apostolic tradition and Scripture. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14 also v 12) and the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). She is well-equipped to preserve the oral apostolic word. The clearest exercise of this is in the Ecumenical Councils after the pattern of the apostles in Acts “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:8).

(2) Tradition (within the whole of STC) is found in what are often referred to as the “monuments of Tradition.” These include:

(a) consent among the Fathers of the Church --early Christian writers who are a witness of the life and teaching of the Church going back to the apostles.
(b) the teaching of the magisterium, most importantly, Ecumenical Councils
(c) the Liturgies of the church throughout time
(d) the Doctors of the Church
(e) ordinary expressions of the Christian life in actions and customs
(f) Sacred canons and sacred customs
(g) the saints (as bearers of tradition)
(h) theologians

(3) It is the coherence of all three S, T, and C that assures that a given monument of tradition is an apostolic teaching or follows from apostolic teaching. Included in STC is the charism of discernment on the part of the Church as to what belongs to the word of God and what does not as in (1) above. A great example of this is the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.

I am sorry and please correct me if wrong. I am looking for a formula of what determines beliefs set down from early christian that constitutes tradition vs non tradition that was believed and passed down.

The Mormon Church was started by Joseph Smith on April 6, 1830. The Jehovah’s Witness cult was started by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870’s.

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ in 33 AD. Every Bishop can trace his office back to one of the Apostles and every teaching can be traced back to Jesus’ teaching.

We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. (Acts 15:27)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Sacred Tradition is transmitted, among other ways, through word of mouth, just like it says in the Bible.

That’s all I can offer and I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

-Tim-

the “way” was the first believers and fully jewish and torah observant. Yes any bishop can trace his office to bible i agree. Yes the gospel was spread by word of mouth and still is, not sure what an any has to do whith my question on tradition why certain parts are accepted or why we need a supposed infallible source besides bible that we than have to interpret.

 

[jjsmity]

There are some great posts before this one which address the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth regarding duly defined and properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines. Foundational doctrines do flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Searching out “Church traditions” including liturgy and poetry, and studying every word written by all the Early Church Fathers and their successors are part of the long intense preparations for the major Ecumenical Church Councils. Please read previous posts on the Councils. The authority for these Councils is found in chapter 14, Gospel of John.

The nitty-gritty is that when it comes to the realm of natural science, no matter what
definition or description is used, pure scientific conclusions and interpretations do not become Catholic doctrines. At the same time, natural science is considered a gift from God which benefits humanity especially in the medical arena. This means that when we learn about our peerless species, we have two areas of information. One is the search for information about our decomposing anatomy and the other is the search for information about our ultimate goal which is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. When we update ourselves regarding current science, we discover its interpretation that large populations are the originating source of the human species. This scientific position directly conflicts with the Catholic doctrine that all of us are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, a population of two.

We do not need to discuss all the twists and turns in natural science. Please refer to the top of this forum and this Sticky Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

Divine Revelation always trumps.

I just have to say it seems catholic today make a distinction that early church fathers and bible do not make, they give authority to gods word alone and tradition if your catholic that clearly teach a certain way.

 

[TimothyH]

the “way” was the first believers and fully jewish and torah observant. Yes any bishop can trace his office to bible i agree. Yes the gospel was spread by word of mouth and still is, not sure what an any has to do whith my question on tradition why certain parts are accepted or why we need a supposed infallible source besides bible that we than have to interpret.

We have an infallible interpreter because God set things up that way so that we don’t fall into error. Everyone argues about what the Bible means and not everyone can be right. There has to be an authority.

You are confusing traditions (lower case “t”) of the Church with Sacred Tradition (upper case “T”). Traditions of the Church are just things we have always done. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture originate with God. All Sacred Tradition is accepted, not just part of it, and there has to be an interpreter or people will fall into error.

-Tim-

 

[jjsmity]

We have an infallible interpreter because God set things up that way so that we don’t fall into error. Everyone argues about what the Bible means and not everyone can be right. There has to be an authority.

You are confusing traditions (lower case “t”) of the Church with Sacred Tradition (upper case “T”). Traditions of the Church are just things we have always done. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture originate with God. All Sacred Tradition is accepted, not just part of it, and there has to be an interpreter or people will fall into error.

-Tim-

could i suggest god and his word are the authority? than us infallible dont need to argue about properly interpreting the words of another given infalibelity the ccc.

 

[fhansen]

I think you missed what i was saying. I was saying other subjects seem to be declared because most fathers believed it [was reason given] so i asked why not young earth creation as that was majority overwhelmingly and cc admits. I am not hear to say what has been declared but why are things declared. But just for your info the topic of evolution does have large impact on salvation.

god told us he created in recent past so i believe him. Not sure what hypocrisy your referring to. Protestants follow the bible, if the church goes against it than we would object yes. the rest i dont disagree with science is great, evolution is contrary to it.

“Protestants follow the bible” is a very broad statement about a far from clear-cut matter. Protestants often disagree greatly over biblical interpretation.

 

[jjsmity]

“Protestants follow the bible” is a very broad statement about a far from clear-cut matter. Protestants often disagree greatly over biblical interpretation.

as do catholics over the ccc. The bible is true regardless of its misuse.

 

[JoeT777]

could i suggest god and his word are the authority? than us infallible don’t need to argue about properly interpreting the words of another given infallibility the ccc.

There is anarchy, not unity, understanding that each individual is his own authority to interpret and teach Scripture based on the mere fact that he can read.

Fr. Joseph T. Lienhard, in his collection of lectures, “The Bible, the Church, and Authority, Epilogue” shows the inability to support one’s own position by adopting a relativism as a philosophical tool of interpretation. Fr. Leinhard compares the relationship of authority in the Bible and the Church to discern the ‘final’ authority. The ‘authority’ naturally belongs in Sacred Scripture as being the “Divine Word” of God given to the Apostles. Christ didn’t write His own books but rather teaches through the Apostles. Scriptures therefore are the witnesses understanding of Christ’s words who are commissioned by Christ to teach, not hand out books for everyone to develop what they might mean. Father Leinhard explains:

“The Bible is, and remains the [Catholic] Church’s book, and the Bible can exist as Scripture only in the [Catholic] Church. Rahner also maintains the Catholic insistence on Scripture and tradition as the bearers of revelation. Many recent Protestant authors have also faced up to the need to discuss the role of tradition, at least in the formation of the canon.” Ibid, p 84

Scripture and the Church co-exist and are co-authoritative. Without the Catholic Church to validate Scripture, Scripture loses authority to teach faith and morals. Scripture can never stand alone as the single and only source of God’s word and the sole purveyor of faith and morals. This freezes faith to a first century understanding and is unable to cope and grow with the current era. Simply, Sacred Scripture never makes the claim that it and it alone is the sole authority of faith. Scripture relies on the Church for its authentication which. Equally important Sacred Scripture when defined as “the sole source” of God’s words precludes miracles, prophecy, Church, and the doctrines of the ECFs. We know this not to be the case because the great and small saints of the Church are ‘prophets of God’. Equally important is the Apostles weren’t given a BOOK to worship, they were given a Kingdom to mend the fruits of His nation. It’s within this Church that we find the Catholic Tradition the means of canonization (authentication) of Scripture. Our salvation would be ill advised to stop even at Tradition, rather we find ‘Church’ to be a part of a sole and infallible rule of faith. So we find the Apostles as authoritative witnesses wrote the Scriptures for the authority of the Church.

JoeT