Contents of holy tradition

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, it is true that some Catholics have a problem explaining what is and isn’t Tradition or tradition. Big T and little t.

Novo - you mentioned Scriptures and I am glad you mentioned Scriptures in the same breath as Tradition (Capital T).

A lot of Bible only brothers are allergic to the Tradition word and who can really blame them, considering the environment where they have grown in Christianity. Plus, you add the best selling translation in the world (NIV) and the way they manipulate the greek word: paradosis (2 Thess 2:15), and you can see why there is so much skepticism. To that you add poorly Catechized Catholics and you have a recipe for disaster…

Anyways, before I move out of explicitly stated Traditions found in Scriptures, I am compelled to show why Scriptures are part of Tradition - because these Traditions were practiced **before **the NT was put into letters.

Before anything was put in writing the Church was already practicing these things found in Scriptures **before **the NT was written and defined:

1. Baptism in the Trinitarian formula.
2. Practicing Holy Orders by the Laying of the Hands.
3. Practicing the Eucharist (Breaking of the bread).
4. OT Scriptures were part of Tradition as well, since there was no closed canon at the time. Further, the OT Tradition of Scriptures is carried over from other Traditions: Jewish.
5. Missions are part of Tradition.
6. Church Councils to define doctrine and dogmas for the faithful are part of Tradition.
7. Church Government.
8. Magisterium (Teaching Office).

These are all found in Scriptures as **part **of Tradition. Therefore Scriptures are part of Tradition.

I may have missed other Traditions and others may be so kind to add them.

I will attempt to work with those Traditions that are not necessarily found explicitly in Scriptures. But I wanted first to demonstrate how Scriptures are part of Tradition and not the other way around. Because that which is practiced first and then develops a written account of said practices, precedes the account. Tradition is the causality of Scriptures. And both are from our Lord.

 

[stewstew03]

Does anyone have any more thoughts to share on this?

Also from Dei Verbum:

"[T]here exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."