church tradition

[guardian1]

i was raised a protestant in a bible only denomination. i asked my dad about the traditions paul talked about when he told the church to practice the traditions he had taught them. dad told me that those traditions were lost to history and we had no idea what they are. now, considering the vast majority of us here are catholic, i’d imagine that you’re going to tell me that those traditions are the ones that you practice to this day . but i was wondering if there is a place where these traditions are recorded. was it the church fathers? and if so which ones wrote down these traditions? thanks!

 

[Wolseley]

They’re all found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers; to save yourself tons of time, however, I would strongly recommend obtaining the full 3-volume set of William Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, and referencing the index in the back, where these doctrines and dogmas are clearly listed.

Many Christians have the idea that Christian thought ended when John wrote Revelation in the late 90’s, and didn’t start up again until 1517, when Martin Luther rode in on a white horse to save mankind from its erroneous ways, and everything else in that 1400-year span in between was simply paganized papist idolatorus balderdash. Needless to say, 't’aint so.

 

[guardian1]

Many Christians have the idea that Christian thought ended when John wrote Revelation in the late 90’s, and didn’t start up again until 1517, when Martin Luther rode in on a white horse to save mankind from its erroneous ways, and everything else in that 1400-year span in between was simply paganaized papist idolatorus balderdash. Needless to say, 't’aint so.

yeah, that’s pretty much the attitude of the churches i attended growing up. catholics are evil and practice the traditions of men. lent was naughty too. i don’t know this for a fact, but apparently, (so i was told) the fisherman at the time couldn’t sell any fish and were going broke. so they appealed to the Holy Father and he decreed that catholics had to eat fish at specific times/days, etc to help the fishermen and now it’s a tradition that has to be followed. don’t know if it’s true or not. this is an example of what i was told are “those evil traditions”.
just thought it was funny what you said about martin luther “saving” us. personally, i’m frustrated with the fact that as protestants, we have our own bible and that the catholic bible is “wrong”. but it was martin luther who removed those books to fit his own theology. as protestants we use an incomplete bible (i recently bought a catholic bible and am now reading the “extra” books. but to me, not having those books in our bible would be following the tradition of man.

 

[johnnydigit]

yep, Early Church Fathers.
newadvent.org/fathers/

the Apostolic Fathers would mostly be those who actually knew the Apostles. so Apostles > Apostolic Fathers > Early Church Fathers.
newadvent.org/cathen/01637a.htm

remember also that the Popes can be traced back to the Apostle Peter also. 265 of em.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

1. 
   *]St. Peter (32-67)
   *]St. Linus (67-76)
   *]St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)…
   266. Benedict XVI (2005—)
   
   for tradition you can start here catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp
   
   or here, where each Sacrament will have quotes from the Church Fathers
   scripturecatholic.com/
   
   then there’s also
   phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/24
   their forum rocks too
   
   God bless, and guardian1 you probably know more about Catholicism than most Catholics out there…

 

[neophyte]

…i don’t know this for a fact, but apparently, (so i was told) the fisherman at the time couldn’t sell any fish and were going broke. so they appealed to the Holy Father and he decreed that catholics had to eat fish at specific times/days, etc to help the fishermen and now it’s a tradition that has to be followed. don’t know if it’s true or not…

I had been told that as well, and I even know quite a number of Catholics who beleive it.

It would be more believable if there was actually a discipline that we had to eat fish, but there isn’t and there never was. The discipline is to abstain from the flesh of land animals. There’s no requirement to eat anything in particular, and there are a lot of ways to get protein besides fish and meat. Eggs, cheese, legumes, insects…the bottom line is that there’s nothing that forces you to eat fish.

 

[BrianH]

Johnny Digit
Catholic Sacred Tradition is hopelessly confused and conflicted over who succeeded who:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

We also have contradictory accounts:

As far as the OP, read the Ante-Nicene fathers for yourself without the interpretation of anyone else is what I would recommend.

 

[johnnydigit]

i don’t know this for a fact, but apparently, (so i was told) the fisherman at the time couldn’t sell any fish and were going broke. so they appealed to the Holy Father and he decreed that catholics had to eat fish at specific times/days, etc to help the fishermen and now it’s a tradition that has to be followed. don’t know if it’s true or not. this is an example of what i was told are “those evil traditions”.

here’s a great example of deciding which sounds more reasonable, and who sounds like they’re trying to discredit the other.

"why do we fast from meat and eat fish on holy days?

explanation #1:
the Church explains that one of the main reasons to abstain from meat is because it was more of a luxury back then. it was more valuable since you had to raise up lambs and take care of them. (i.e. the prodigal son, when they slaughtered a calf to celebrate.) so giving up meat would be more of a sacrifice. fish on the otherhand, was plentiful and cheap. tons came free from the ocean. it’s like lobster compared to chicken today.

fastforward 2000 years. the tradition to abstain from meat and eat fish is still here, except that nowadays meat is as easy to get as fish is. it would be more of a sacrifice to say, not eat a Big Mac or drink Coke for a month if you happen to eat them often. the Church repeatedly reminds us that it’s more an issue of a sacrifice, not meat vs. fish. fasting and making sacrifices are very beneficial for growing in our faith as well as mentally and physically.

** explanation #2:**
the fishermen were having bad business and so the Pope madeup a decree for the people to only eat fish for no good reason. the sneaky Pope made it sound like it was a sacrifice, when he really just wanted to help the fishermen make money, and probably pocketed some change for himself too.

so now which sounds more reasonable? which sounds like it’s more historical? which sounds like it’s more made up to try and attack the other?

 

[Wolseley]

Johnny Digit
Catholic Sacred Tradition is hopelessly confused and conflicted over who succeeded who:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

We also have contradictory accounts:

As far as the OP, read the Ante-Nicene fathers for yourself without the interpretation of anyone else is what I would recommend.

You mean like this?

The stone was rolled away by one angel, who sat on it. (Matthew 28:2)
The stone was rolled away by one angel, who sat down inside the tomb. (Mark 16:4-5)
The stone was rolled away by two angels, who stood outside the tomb. (Luke 24:2-4)
The stone was rolled away, but there weren’t any angels there at all. (John 20:1-3)

With a little research, you can multiply these examples of discrepancies in Scripture dozens of times over.

Fortunately, for the Catholic, both Scripture and Tradition are interpreted through the Sacred Magesterium, and the individual doesn’t have to try to sort it all out himself. That task has already been accomplished through the ages by theologians who were a lot smarter than most of us are.

 

[johnnydigit]

You mean like this?

The stone was rolled away by one angel, who sat on it. (Matthew 28:2)
The stone was rolled away by one angel, who sat down inside the tomb. (Mark 16:4-5)
The stone was rolled away by two angels, who stood outside the tomb. (Luke 24:2-4)
The stone was rolled away, but there weren’t any angels there at all. (John 20:1-3)

With a little research, you can multiply these examples of discrepancies in Scripture dozens of times over.

Fortunately, for the Catholic, both Scripture and Tradition are interpreted through the Sacred Magesterium, and the individual doesn’t have to try to sort it all out himself. That task has already been accomplished through the ages by theologians who were a lot smarter than most of us are.

and here we were about to give that teenager down the street a cookie, who caught these discrepancies and defunked the entire Bible. who would have thought a 7th grader could flip 2000 years of the greatest minds in history upsidedown and make them into fools.

i’m going to give him a copy of the Bill of Rights and see what he makes of it…give those superior court judges a run for their money…

 

[Subrosa]

Johnny Digit
Catholic Sacred Tradition is hopelessly confused and conflicted over who succeeded who:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

We also have contradictory accounts:

As far as the OP, read the Ante-Nicene fathers for yourself without the interpretation of anyone else is what I would recommend.

Hey Brian - Cletus and Anacletus are the same guy.

Think Saul & Paul, Simon & Peter, etc…

Sub

 

[BrianH]

Hey Brian - Cletus and Anacletus are the same guy.

Think Saul & Paul, Simon & Peter, etc…

Sub

Perhaps…
Perhaps not…

"

He may have been the same person as Cletus. Eusebius, Irenaeus, Augustine and Optatus all suggest that both names refer to the same individual. On the other hand, the Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis both state that Anacletus and Cletus are different persons."

 

[Mannyfit75]

Perhaps…
Perhaps not…

"

Umph, wrong.

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenröther (Hist. de l’église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Döllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that "they are, without doubt, the same person"and that “the ‘Catalogue of Liberius’ merits little confidence before 230.” Duchesne, “Origines chretiennes”, ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines”, says “we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus – Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology.” That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91

newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm

Pope St. Cletus

This name is only another form for Anacletus, the second successor of St. Peter. It is true that the Liberian Catalogue, a fourth-century list of popes, so called because it ends with Pope Liberius (d. 366), contains both names, as if they were different persons. But** this is an error, owing evidently to the existence of two forms of the same name**, one an abbreviation of the other. In the aforesaid catalogue the papal succession is: Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus. This catalogue, however, is the only authority previous to the sixth century (Liber Pontificalis) for distinguishing two popes under the names of Cletus and Anacletus

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/04054a.htm

 

[BrianH]

Umph, wrong.

This is even better than what I quoted!! “Sacred Tradition” is even more confused that I thought!

Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion.

Which says quite a bit in and of itself does it not? The Catholic church cannot give an accurate list of the head of the entire church?

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person.

Ok. Of course we know that Eusebius has some questionable marks as a historian and Irenaeus has Jesus dying closer to Social Security age.

Tertullian omits him altogether.

Fascinating

[To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement;

I see

whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus.

Goodness this is confusing

On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other;

Isn’t this what I just said?

while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman.

The truth is they have no idea I suspect
What list is infallible? I know that atheists have used this argument as well. I hate that they can use this as ammunition!

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/numbering.htm
even 50 years ago it is a work in progress!
time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,778924,00.html
[/quote]

 

[johnnydigit]

therefore it possibly means that there were no Popes at all at the time? or that if the Church is unsure here, they must be unsure of other things as well? have they said the list is infallible? if so, they may be completely wrong and infallability may go down the toilet!

unfortunately, the answer is no, no, and no. tomato or tomatoe? there must be something wrong with american tradition…

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is even better than what I quoted!! “Sacred Tradition” is even more confused that I thought!

Which says quite a bit in and of itself does it not? The Catholic church cannot give an accurate list of the head of the entire church?

Ok. Of course we know that Eusebius has some questionable marks as a historian and Irenaeus has Jesus dying closer to Social Security age.

Fascinating

I see

Goodness this is confusing

Isn’t this what I just said?

The truth is they have no idea I suspect

What list is infallible? I know that atheists have used this argument as well. I hate that they can use this as ammunition!

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/numbering.htm
even 50 years ago it is a work in progress!
time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,778924,00.html

Suppose for a moment that in the year 2007 we are unsure of a name or two in the list. What does that mean?

The people of that era certainly knew who the pope was even if we don’t. The list of the successors of Peter is not an issue of infallibility. If you understood this even slightly, you would not suggest otherwise.

It matters not a whit if there was a gap of a few days, weeks or even months while the election of a pope was delayed or contested or what have you. The issue is not that the Chair of Peter is NEVER vacant, but that it is always filled by the next successor of Peter.

It is important for you to realize that one Pope does not succeed the previous pope so that one missing link breaks the entire chain. No, EVERY pope is a successor of Peter.

If we don’t know who one or two were…that’s not a problem. We think we have a pretty good handle on who most of them were. Additionally, even if the papacy remains vacant for an extended period of time, this does not negatively impact Apostolic Succession because valid orders would be maintained by the other Bishops. At most, there would be no Cardinals named during the vacancy.

Okay, so what?

After 2,000 years, the papacy is the oldest institution on Earth.

So, before you cast another stone, Brian, ask yourself this question: Do I have a clue as to who the founders of my own “ecclesial community” were and who succeeded them down to the present day?"

I’m guessing that you have no idea and that you couldn’t care less.

Am I right?

So, I’m not sure what kind of mileage you think you’re getting out of this argument, but to be honest, knocking down this straw man is meaningless.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[cmancone]

i was raised a protestant in a bible only denomination. i asked my dad about the traditions paul talked about when he told the church to practice the traditions he had taught them. dad told me that those traditions were lost to history and we had no idea what they are. now, considering the vast majority of us here are catholic, i’d imagine that you’re going to tell me that those traditions are the ones that you practice to this day . but i was wondering if there is a place where these traditions are recorded. was it the church fathers? and if so which ones wrote down these traditions? thanks!

It always helps to state what you quote. Allow me:

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It seems that Catholics often use this first to justify the idea of “Tradition”, but frankly I don’t understand why. No where in this verse, or in the surrounding verses, is a promise either stated or implied. This is a command, not a promise, and the two are very different. For instance after healing people Jesus often tells people, “Go and sin no more.” Does that mean that the person in question never sins again? It certainly doesn’t. Most likely, they do sin again some point in their life. It is a command not a promise, and we people are not so great at doing what we’re told.

In this verse, Paul instructs his brothers to hold onto the teachings they were given, whether by letter or word of mouth. He doesn’t promise that they will hold onto those teachings, and he certainly doesn’t promise that an infallible “Tradition” will develop to guide believers. He simply gives a command that may or may not be followed. No where else does the Bible imply imply the Catholic idea of Tradition. Where does this leave us? The answer is quite simple. We have written scripture that, through textual analysis and the many early copies that exist, we know is an accurate copy of what the disciples taught. Then, we have this oral Tradition which is no where attested to in our reliable scriptures and has no written record to establish that what is taught now is what was taught originally. We have nothing to check Tradition against, and have only it’s own word that what it says is true. Personally, I think it is easy enough to decide which to trust.

Anyway, that’s what I think. To anyone who responds to me, make sure you answer this question first: If 2 Thessalonians isn’t a promise that people will hold onto Tradition (and it isn’t) then why do Catholics insist on using it to demonstrate the existence of said Tradition?

 

[cmancone]

From Randy:

After 2,000 years, the papacy is the oldest institution on Earth.

So, before you cast another stone, Brian, ask yourself this question: Do I have a clue as to who the founders of my own “ecclesial community” were and who succeeded them down to the present day?"

I’m guessing that you have no idea and that you couldn’t care less.

Am I right?

So, I’m not sure what kind of mileage you think you’re getting out of this argument, but to be honest, knocking down this straw man is meaningless.

Hi Randy,
I’m afraid I must contest your points above. Firstly, you imply that because of the apparent age of the Catholic church, it must be the “correct” church. Certainly you don’t really mean that, do you? After all, Judaism is much older than Catholicism. Should I therefore become Jewish?
The people who created the church I attend doesn't matter in the slightest. I'm part of the body of Christ, and the church I belong to is head by and founded by Jesus. The person who formed the particular group of people I worship with on Sundays (i.e. the founder of my ecclesiastical community) is largely meaningless. However, although the line of founders who created my "church" doesn't matter one whit, the line of papal succession does matter because your church claims it matters. The Catholic church sets itself apart because it claims its Popes have a direct line of succession straight back to Peter, a claim no other church makes (why would they, since such a thing doesn't matter?) So, although the founders of my church don't matter, the founders of your church very much matter, because your church says it does. So, Brian's point is not a strawman, and you can't just attempt to sweep his argument under the rug. You must respond to his points according to their own merits, you can't just dismiss them out of hand.

 

[Jerry_Heil]

i was raised a protestant in a bible only denomination. i asked my dad about the traditions paul talked about when he told the church to practice the traditions he had taught them. dad told me that those traditions were lost to history and we had no idea what they are. now, considering the vast majority of us here are catholic, i’d imagine that you’re going to tell me that those traditions are the ones that you practice to this day . but i was wondering if there is a place where these traditions are recorded. was it the church fathers? and if so which ones wrote down these traditions? thanks!

 

[Jerry_Heil]

There seems to be some confusion between practices and beliefs. The deposit of faith is not about how we worship, but what we were given as truth by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[BrianH]

Suppose for a moment that in the year 2007 we are unsure of a name or two in the list. What does that mean?

It means that historically the Catholic Church has no clue about who the “Pope” was after Peter. The reason being that the Roman church did not have a monarchial bishop, as most scholars would tell you. The myth of one successor is just that. No two people tell the same story as Manny’s quotes point out.

The people of that era certainly knew who the pope was even if we don’t. The list of the successors of Peter is not an issue of infallibility. If you understood this even slightly, you would not suggest otherwise.

If you are suggesting that the people in Rome knew who the presbyters and bishops were, I would agree. After all, as Ignatius points out, Rome did preside in its immediate area. Now, we also know that Ignatius never says a thing about Rome to the other churches in terms of Rome having an exclusive role. That this had any importance outside of the immediate area of Rome, I doubt it.

It matters not a whit if there was a gap of a few days, weeks or even months while the election of a pope was delayed or contested or what have you. The issue is not that the Chair of Peter is NEVER vacant, but that it is always filled by the next successor of Peter.

But that is exactly the point Randy, history does not tell us who the “successor of Peter” is because it is contradictory. When is the first bishop in Rome to refer to himself as “successor of Peter”?

It is important for you to realize that one Pope does not succeed the previous pope so that one missing link breaks the entire chain. No, EVERY pope is a successor of Peter.

So you say, but that is not the teaching of the early church and I suspect you know that.

If we don’t know who one or two were…that’s not a problem. We think we have a pretty good handle on who most of them were. Additionally, even if the papacy remains vacant for an extended period of time, this does not negatively impact Apostolic Succession because valid orders would be maintained by the other Bishops. At most, there would be no Cardinals named during the vacancy.

I suspect you have read enough history to know that the early church does not distinguish between the roles of deacon, presbyters, and bishops enough for the claims of “Apostolic Succession” to ring true.

So, before you cast another stone, Brian, ask yourself this question: Do I have a clue as to who the founders of my own “ecclesial community” were and who succeeded them down to the present day?"

The key difference is that unlike other groups (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, fundie Baptists etc) Methodist churches do not make the exclusive claims you do. If we did, then you would have a good point. Anyone who knows me, knows I came unto this board quite ecumenical. It was in dealing with the exclusive claims of Catholicism that I had to confront these claims and get off the fence so to speak. Fundamentalism in all of its forms has to be addressed. If there are any fundamentalist Methodists, I would address this as well.

So, I’m not sure what kind of mileage you think you’re getting out of this argument, but to be honest, knocking down this straw man is meaningless.

I have found it effective. Perhaps not with you, I have no doubt you will never be convinced you swam the wrong river but outside of this forum, it works pretty well.