Curious Question on the Standard of Tradition

[FabiusMaximus]

I just have a curious question for Catholics (and I suppose, Orthodox) on Tradition.

Since Tradition is to be considered of an equal standing with the Bible in terms of divine inspiration, how do we know what to pick and choose as “proper” Tradition and what to dispense as “human hypotheses.”

For example, Catholics and Orthodox alike would consider men like Augustine and Origen as fathers of the early Church whose writings we consider valuable for understanding. My question is, on what basis do Catholics choose if something is correct?

Did not both Augustine and Origen table beliefs that today we wouldn’t consider acceptable? For example, didn’t Origen believe in the preexistence of the soul? Why do we reject that belief and accept others, and how do we decide this if not through a written standard?

Please be advised that this isn’t a question meant to “stump” anyone. Although I hail from an Evangelical background, I’m more or less lapsed, so it is not my intention to be biased.

Thank you.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

As I understand it, infallible Tradition consists of those things taught definitively by the Church as a whole, not just believed by a few members (even Church Fathers, though I doubt we dismiss their beliefs lightly).

Councils, Ex Cathedra statements and the like declare things to be infallibly true (and since they are considered to be absolutely definitely true, you could say their authority is on the same level as Scripture’s, since that is also definitely true. I personally don’t see much point in ranking authorities like this though. A thing’s true or it’s not, if it’s true it can’t and doesn’t contradict anything else that’s true, so a “ranking” among true things seems a bit of a waste of time. Anyway.) So the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is infallibly true, because it was declared (defined?) as such by an ex cathedra statement.

It boils down to this: the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to make it infallible, but not all members are.

It is also important to remember that there are ideas that come up within the Church that are popular for a while but not actually definitively taught as true, which then pass from prominence. Limbo, for example.

For your particular examples, the best I can say is that we don’t consider them to be infallibly true because they were never part of a council statement or similar. It may be that a Church Father had an idea, it never got accepted, and was disproved on the basis of something else some time after he died.

Also note that much of what we consider Tradition is now written. It just might not have been originally.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

As I understand it, infallible Tradition consists of those things taught definitively by the Church as a whole, not just believed by a few members (even Church Fathers, though I doubt we dismiss their beliefs lightly).

Councils, Ex Cathedra statements and the like declare things to be infallibly true (and since they are considered to be absolutely definitely true, you could say their authority is on the same level as Scripture’s, since that is also definitely true. I personally don’t see much point in ranking authorities like this though. A thing’s true or it’s not, if it’s true it can’t and doesn’t contradict anything else that’s true, so a “ranking” among true things seems a bit of a waste of time. Anyway.) So the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is infallibly true, because it was declared (defined?) as such by an ex cathedra statement.

It boils down to this: the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to make it infallible, but not all members are.

It is also important to remember that there are ideas that come up within the Church that are popular for a while but not actually definitively taught as true, which then pass from prominence. Limbo, for example.

For your particular examples, the best I can say is that we don’t consider them to be infallibly true because they were never part of a council statement or similar. It may be that a Church Father had an idea, it never got accepted, and was disproved on the basis of something else some time after he died.

Also note that much of what we consider Tradition is now written. It just might not have been originally.

What doesn’t make sense to me is what rule of thumb do the councils use to determine it?

Today if a Catholic or an Orthodox wants to make a point that something is correct, they will take into consideration what a particular Church father said. Presumably, that’s what the Church itself did during the councils. My question is, what guideline did the bishops of the councils use to decide and expand upon? Wouldn’t they have needed an absolute standard…like scripture?

 

[dzheremi]

Hi FabiusMaximus. Good questions. This series of videos may help you, at least to understand how the Orthodox Church understands Tradition vs. tradition:

“Orthodox Answers to Protestant Confusion”, presented by Fr. Anthony Messeh of the Coptic Orthodox Church (St. Mark’s, Washington DC)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

 

[FightingFat]

I just have a curious question for Catholics (and I suppose, Orthodox) on Tradition.

Since Tradition is to be considered of an equal standing with the Bible in terms of divine inspiration, how do we know what to pick and choose as “proper” Tradition and what to dispense as “human hypotheses.”

For example, Catholics and Orthodox alike would consider men like Augustine and Origen as fathers of the early Church whose writings we consider valuable for understanding. My question is, on what basis do Catholics choose if something is correct?

Did not both Augustine and Origen table beliefs that today we wouldn’t consider acceptable? For example, didn’t Origen believe in the preexistence of the soul? Why do we reject that belief and accept others, and how do we decide this if not through a written standard?

Please be advised that this isn’t a question meant to “stump” anyone. Although I hail from an Evangelical background, I’m more or less lapsed, so it is not my intention to be biased.

Thank you.

Tradition has to be Apostolic, it has to be traceable to the Apostles. Revelation ended when the last Apostle died. We believe that “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25) What He said and did was left to be told by the Apostles so to be valid, TRadition has to be Apostolic in nature.

This is explained really well in Dei Verbum, have you read it?

Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

The above from n. 7. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I just have a curious question for Catholics (and I suppose, Orthodox) on Tradition.

Since Tradition is to be considered of an equal standing with the Bible in terms of divine inspiration, how do we know what to pick and choose as “proper” Tradition and what to dispense as “human hypotheses.”

Christianity is not a collection of doctrines among which we may pick and choose. A Catholic, by definition, believes what the Church teaches. And the Church teaches what the Apostles taught.

For example, Catholics and Orthodox alike would consider men like Augustine and Origen as fathers of the early Church whose writings we consider valuable for understanding. My question is, on what basis do Catholics choose if something is correct?-

Again, the definition of a Catholic is one who believes what the Church teaches. We do not read the Church Fathers or the Scriptures to learn new doctrines. We read them to confirm our faith, “once for all delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3)

Did not both Augustine and Origen table beliefs that today we wouldn’t consider acceptable? For example, didn’t Origen believe in the preexistence of the soul? Why do we reject that belief and accept others, and how do we decide this if not through a written standard?

“Origenism” consists of a number of theories either charged or attributed to Origen (A.D. 185-254), the great biblical exegete and spiritual writer. Among these theories was the pre-existence of soul, denial of the personal identity of the mortal and gloriifed bodies, and the claim that the devil and those in hell will eventually be saved. Origenism was condemned by the second Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553.

Augustine is a saint and doctor of the Church. That doesn’t mean that the Church accepts every word St. Augustine wrote. Neither is the teaching of the greatest of all Catholic teachers – St.Thomas Aquinas – accepted in total.

Jesus Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, the leaders of His Church, to remind them of all He had taught them and to guide them (and their successors) to “all truth” ALWAYS. (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15). He promised that He would be with His Apostles (and their successors) ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20 KJV).

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Nine_Two]

From the perspective of the Orthodox Church, Tradition (not to be confused with tradition, which is local custom) is the consensus of the Fathers. So if one father says something not in line with what others said than that is not part of tradition (for example Origen on reincarnation), but when there is consensus among the fathers (real presence for example) then we know it to be true Tradition.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

What doesn’t make sense to me is what rule of thumb do the councils use to determine it?

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are measured against the teaching of the Church, which comes to us from the Apostles. The questions: Is this what the Apostles taught us orally? Is this what the Apostles wrote to us? The Church accepted as Apostolic those writings and those Traditions that are mirror images of herself. There was no Bible until the end of the fourth century.

The Sacred Apostolic Traditions were not written down and canonized as Scripture, but they were preserved in other ways – some written but not canonized. For example, Sacred Tradition provides the canon of Scripture and the framework for interpreting it. Sacred Tradition can be seen in the Church’s liturgy and prayers, the Church’s practices such as how we confess our sins, etc.

Today if a Catholic or an Orthodox wants to make a point that something is correct, they will take into consideration what a particular Church father said. Presumably, that’s what the Church itself did during the councils. My question is, what guideline did the bishops of the councils use to decide and expand upon? Wouldn’t they have needed an absolute standard…like scripture?

1. Here’s how Scripture came to be:

Jesus in history - words are spoken and deeds are performed by Jesus Himself during his lifetime on earth.

Oral Tradition - traditions and beliefs about Jesus are developed and passed on by early Christian communities - called “Catholic” (universal) almost from the beginning. The term was known to St. Ignatius of Antioch, student of St. John, who wrote it in A.D. 107.

Written Sources - some of the miracles and/or sayings of Jesus are compiled and recorded in early written documents.

Written Texts - individual letters, Gospels, Acts, Revelation are written by different authors, at different times and places, for different audiences and purposes, with particular messages for particular situations.

Distribution - some writings are copied and shared with other Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean.

Collection - some Christians begin collecting the letters of Paul and gathering together several different Gospels.

Canonization - four Gospels, several collections of letters, and Acts and Revelation are accepted as authoritative scriptures, along with the Greek Septuagint writings.

Translation - biblical texts are translated into ever more ancient and modern languages: Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc.

Interpretation - the meaning of the scriptures is investigated on various levels: literal, spiritual, historical, social, etc.

Application - communities and individuals use the NT for practical purposes: liturgical, moral, sacramental, theological, etc.

B. Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon at the end of the fourth century, while others were rejected):

1. Apostolic Origin - the writing had to be Apostolic – i.e., attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the Apostles or their closest companions.
2. Universal Acceptance - the writing had to have been acknowledged by all major Catholic communities in the Mediterranean world by the end of the fourth century.
3. Liturgical Use - the writing had to have been read aloud publicly, along with writings from the Septuagint, when early Christians gathered for the Eucharist
4. Conformity - compatability - the writing had to conform to the teaching of the Church and be compatabile with other writings already accepted.

I am Catholic; I can’t speak for the Orthodox.

Jim Dandy

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For example, Catholics and Orthodox alike would consider men like Augustine and Origen as fathers of the early Church whose writings we consider valuable for understanding. My question is, on what basis do Catholics choose if something is correct?

Origen is not considered a Father of the Church.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Origen is not considered a Father of the Church.

Source, please.

Origen is listed in the online Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org) among the Fathers of the Church. He is included in William A. Jurgens 3-volume series, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, and in other books I have read on the Church Fathers.

Thanks, Jim Dandy

 

[Javl]

I am sure your question has been answered by the posters. Just remember that Tradition ( big “T” ) must agree with Scripture and is what the Apostles taught ( example: The Holy Trinity ). Small “t” tradition is man made and is not obligatory in belief or practice.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[gmcbroom]

A Lutheran friend of mine was pretty insistant that all traditions big and small T are man made so he felt it justified a pick and choose way of doing things accepting doctrines and the like. He subscribes to the either the priesthood of All Believers where anyone can choose what to follow. and he justifies it by quoting a passage where Jesus said where two or three are gathered in my name I AM there. So the man made traditions can be dispenced with. I disagreed with him, but didn’t want to get into an argument with him though I feel he means well but is incorrect concerning traditions and the priesthood of All Believers.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Christianity is not a collection of doctrines among which we may pick and choose. A Catholic, by definition, believes what the Church teaches. And the Church teaches what the Apostles taught.

Again, the definition of a Catholic is one who believes what the Church teaches. We do not read the Church Fathers or the Scriptures to learn new doctrines. We read them to confirm our faith, “once for all delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3)

“Origenism” consists of a number of theories either charged or attributed to Origen (A.D. 185-254), the great biblical exegete and spiritual writer. Among these theories was the pre-existence of soul, denial of the personal identity of the mortal and gloriifed bodies, and the claim that the devil and those in hell will eventually be saved. Origenism was condemned by the second Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553.

Augustine is a saint and doctor of the Church. That doesn’t mean that the Church accepts every word St. Augustine wrote. Neither is the teaching of the greatest of all Catholic teachers – St.Thomas Aquinas – accepted in total.

Jesus Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, the leaders of His Church, to remind them of all He had taught them and to guide them (and their successors) to “all truth” ALWAYS. (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15). He promised that He would be with His Apostles (and their successors) ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20 KJV).

Peace, Jim Dandy

Thanks everyone for taking the time to continue to respond, even if I haven’t been here often to look at the answers.

What I I just don’t don’t understand here Jim, is that you say that Tradition has to be in accordance to what the Church thought - but isn’t that itself verified through Tradition and/or the scriptures?

If, according to the Catholic Church, the apostles taught and believed in purgatory, for instance, how do we know they did? The first documentations of purgatory didn’t happen until far after the apostles had all died and the Bible was already either completed or almost entirely compiled.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to continue to respond, even if I haven’t been here often to look at the answers.

What I I just don’t don’t understand here Jim, is that you say that Tradition has to be in accordance to what the Church thought - but isn’t that itself verified through Tradition and/or the scriptures?

If, according to the Catholic Church, the apostles taught and believed in purgatory, for instance, how do we know they did? The first documentations of purgatory didn’t happen until far after the apostles had all died and the Bible was already either completed or almost entirely compiled.

You should probably look at the following areas

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510bt.asp

These are a few. I provided them as it appears your questions are not getting answered. Did you know that you can search this website and ask an Apologist.

By the way why do you have a quote of a murderer and a rapist at the bottom of your post.