Do Catholics believe that Tradition ≥ Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homerun40968
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Homerun40968

Guest
How superior or inferior is tradition to the Bible in the Catholic Church. What is tradition composed of?
 
Homerun40968 said:
How superior or inferior is tradition to the Bible in the Catholic Church. What is tradition composed of?
Click to expand...
It’s like a 3 leg stool.
  1. Sacred Scripture
  2. Sacred Tradition
  3. Magisterium
In order for the stool to stand all 3 legs need to be present. Each leg supports the others and keeps the stool standing.
 
The Church receives both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture with equal honour, because both are given to her by her Lord.
 
peregrinus_sg said:
The Church receives both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture with equal honour, because both are given to her by her Lord.
Click to expand...
Specifically, we give honor to God’s Revelation to Mankind, some of which was written in the Bible.

We see this itself in the Bible.

John 21:24-25
It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true.
Click to expand...
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
Click to expand...
So we see that Christ did many things not recorded. Since He spent 3 years with the Apostles, we know He said many things not recorded in the Bible.

But at the same time, He commanded them to teach them ALL that He had taught them.

Matt 28:19-20
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
Click to expand...
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
Click to expand...
He didn’t make an exception for things that were only written down, because, as John said, there were not books enough to hold it.

That is still true today. There are not book enough to hold ALL that Christ did and taught, that He why the Apostles spent years in a community, preaching and demonstrating what Christ did and what His commandments were. And they passed those down to their sucessors, the bishops, as they were Commanded to in Matthew 28, to teach ALL.
 
The Catholic Church teaches nothing that contradicts Scripture.
 
Homerun40968 said:
Do Catholics believe that Tradition ? Bible?
Click to expand...
Yes, in the sense that Sacred Tradition is “larger” than the Bible. Sacred Tradition includes both the Written Tradition (the Scriptures) and the Oral Tradition (all other teaching preserved and handed down by the Church). This not to say that Church considers either more important than the other.
 
Tradition is the only lens one can understand the Bible through. Without it the only lens you are using is your own- you cannot know what the authors meant or what God is saying through the text. Thankfully, Christ has endowed His Bride the authority to interpret it (infallibly) in His behalf
 
Tietjen said:
It’s like a 3 leg stool.
  1. Sacred Scripture
  2. Sacred Tradition
  3. Magisterium
In order for the stool to stand all 3 legs need to be present. Each leg supports the others and keeps the stool standing.
Click to expand...
Magisterium - I’m unfamiliar with this term. Could you explain it?
 
This upcoming book should be a treasure for our better understanding

**God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office **(Hardcover)
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Author)
 
Hi Homerun,

Scripture and Tradition are two forms of the same thing, namely, the word of God.

Here from the conciliar document Dei Verbum:
  1. Hence there 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, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it 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 sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
Click to expand...
Full text :
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm

Verbum
 
I’m not sure I understand what you all are saying about Tradition. Are you saying that the sayings of every early church father are inerrant? Does this mean that we could add all of their books and letters to the Bible if we wanted? I thought that the Bible was kept distinct because of its inerrancy.

I understand what you’re all saying about the value of understanding scripture through the lens of Tradition. That makes sense to me. But is Tradition actually supposed to be inerrant? Infallible? Without any error anywhere whatsoever?

Also, how does one determine who counts as an Early Church Father (with infallible writings) and who does not? And how does one determine when that era of infallible writings ended? Augustine and Aquinas aren’t considered to have written infallible texts, even though they were extremely learned and filled with the Spirit, and Augustine lived in a very early era of church history.
 
Lief_Erikson said:
I’m not sure I understand what you all are saying about Tradition. Are you saying that the sayings of every early church father are inerrant? Does this mean that we could add all of their books and letters to the Bible if we wanted? I thought that the Bible was kept distinct because of its inerrancy.

I understand what you’re all saying about the value of understanding scripture through the lens of Tradition. That makes sense to me. But is Tradition actually supposed to be inerrant? Infallible? Without any error anywhere whatsoever?

Also, how does one determine who counts as an Early Church Father (with infallible writings) and who does not? And how does one determine when that era of infallible writings ended? Augustine and Aquinas aren’t considered to have written infallible texts, even though they were extremely learned and filled with the Spirit, and Augustine lived in a very early era of church history.
Click to expand...
***Hi, Lief Erikson!

Sacred Scriptures***: the Old and New Testament

Sacred Tradition: Doctrines of Faith passed down from Christ through the Apostles.

Early Church: Sacred Writings: Old Testament (Greek translation), some Epistles, and later the Gospels and more Epistles, and the Apocalyse; Sacred Traditions (limited to the immidiate Church history).

Development of the Church: Sacred Writings: remained the same; Sacred Tradition: expanded as the Church sought to reach a greater number of people and fought new heresies and the resurfacing of old heresies; Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit compiled the Bible–all 73 Books.

Reformations and Schisms: Sacred Writings: Bible: in the Catholic Church: remained as on the 4th Century (73 Books); in the Protestant churches: varied according to the founders (66 or less to 73); Sacred Tradition: Catholic: retained; Protestant: new or none (though not called Tradition).

During all of the Church’s history there have been battles fought from both within and without. Some usurpers have infiltraded the Church throughout time and some dissenters have sought to reek havoc in the Church as they worked to dismantle her. The Church has even suffered from well-intentioned zealots who’s teachings served to fuel dissension and schism rather than to further Christendom. The Church remains with both the Sacred Scriptures (Bible) and the Sacred Traditions (Oral Doctrines).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi Lief,

Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time. This means that the Church, as a whole, cannot permanently deviate from the truth. This it does, with the help of the Holy Spirit, by receiving the truth handed down from the apostles through the centuries. (See the quote from my first post).

Verbum
 
The Church, that is, the apostolic witness, which is the source of knowledge of Christ, is the proximate rule of faith.

Scripture and Tradition come out of that witness, and thus are both remote rules of faith. We can only trust those if we trust the witness of the apostles and their successors.
 
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or be a letter of ours.
-2 Thessalonians 2:15

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
-1 Corinthians 11:2
 
Homerun40968 said:
How superior or inferior is tradition to the Bible in the Catholic Church. What is tradition composed of?
Click to expand...
The New Testament actually is tradition and was passed on for several generations as Sacred Tradition before any of it was written down.
 
wired_faith said:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or be a letter of ours.
-2 Thessalonians 2:15

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
-1 Corinthians 11:2
Click to expand...
What traditions does the RCC teach that aren’t found in scripture? If you think there are any, how do you know where these traditions came from?

If you don’t think there are any traditions that aren’t found in scripture, than I guess the traditions Paul taught are found within the pages of scripture?
 
Pwrlftr said:
What traditions does the RCC teach that aren’t found in scripture?
Click to expand...
Actually even the New Testament actually is tradition and was passed on for several generations as Sacred Tradition before some of it was written down and became what we now call the New Testament.

Some man made traditions not found in the bible are:
  1. Scripture alone is the sole rule of Faith - not in the bible.
  2. Saved by ‘Faith Alone’ is not in the bible.
  3. That once we are saved we are always saved is not in the bible.
  4. Saying ‘I accept Jesus as the Lord of my life’ will cause us to be saved is not in the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top