Do Catholics do a poor job at explaining Sacred Tradition?

[JaKael02]

Do Catholics do a poor job at explaining Sacred Tradition?

Often on this forum Catholics debate a variety of issues and we use the early Church fathers, Bible, and magisterium documents to defend our position. But it seems like many of the positions can be properly explained if we could properly explain how Sacred Tradition works.

Debates I’m thinking of are Papacy, Sacraments, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Eucharist (real presense vs Symbolic), etc.

I personally know I’m “horrible” at explaining Sacred Tradition and typically resort to other sources for proof. But typically the proofs I attempt to defend was confided to the Church as a deposit and not always explicitly written in a way that can be sufficiently explained using 1 or 2nd century documents.

Thoughts?

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not sure that we do. There are a lot of good sources here at CA that can be found at this Tracts link.

So far as Scared Tradition is concerned, I have a few blog articles that may help.

• Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory
• Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
• What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?
• Tradition? No way!

 

[JaKael02]

So far as Scared Tradition is concerned, I have a few blog articles that may help.

Good blog articles. They do show some early Church Sacred Tradition at play. I didn’t know the thing about Jude that you discussed, but it was informative.

 

[Joe_5859]

Do Catholics do a poor job at explaining Sacred Tradition?

Often on this forum Catholics debate a variety of issues and we use the early Church fathers, Bible, and magisterium documents to defend our position. But it seems like many of the positions can be properly explained if we could properly explain how Sacred Tradition works.

Debates I’m thinking of are Papacy, Sacraments, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Eucharist (real presense vs Symbolic), etc.

I personally know I’m “horrible” at explaining Sacred Tradition and typically resort to other sources for proof. But typically the proofs I attempt to defend was confided to the Church as a deposit and not always explicitly written in a way that can be sufficiently explained using 1 or 2nd century documents.

Thoughts?

I’ve thought the same thing. I’ve encountered many people (including many Catholics) who approach Sacred Tradition as if it is the codified validation of the “But we’ve always done it that way” mentality. We definitely could use a better grasp of what Tradition means.

 

[Church_Militant]

Good blog articles. They do show some early Church Sacred Tradition at play. I didn’t know the thing about Jude that you discussed, but it was informative.

Well, it has always been interesting to me that Jude quotes Jewish Sacred Tradition into his writings which the Church canonized as inspired, which tells something important, don’t you think?

 

[Church_Militant]

I’ve thought the same thing. I’ve encountered many people (including many Catholics) who approach Sacred Tradition as if it is the codified validation of the “But we’ve always done it that way” mentality. We definitely could use a better grasp of what Tradition means.

Well Joe, ya gotta remember that even Sacred Scripture itself actually comes to us through Sacred Tradition, right?

 

[Joe_5859]

Well Joe, ya gotta remember that even Sacred Scripture itself actually comes to us through Sacred Tradition, right?

Right. I used to find it annoying that everything I read about Tradition seemed to talk about Scripture in the same breath (Can’t they just tell me why they’re different? ). But considering both are part of the one Divine Revelation, you cannot really talk about one without talking about the other.

 

[JaKael02]

Well, it has always been interesting to me that Jude quotes Jewish Sacred Tradition into his writings which the Church canonized as inspired, which tells something important, don’t you think?

The Assumption of Moses was not part of Jewish Sacred tradition though? Wasn’t it non-cannonical jewish text? Or am I misinterpreting you?

 

[JaKael02]

Right. I used to find it annoying that everything I read about Tradition seemed to talk about Scripture in the same breath (Can’t they just tell me why they’re different? ). But considering both are part of the one Divine Revelation, you cannot really talk about one without talking about the other.

So if it’s a traditional custom (liturgical custom) or a traditional account (such as Veronica wiping the face of Christ during his 2nd fall on his way to calvary) then the tradition is just a tradition; not Sacred Tradition? Am I correct here?

While if the tradition is carried via the organ of apostolic teaching and is related to doctrine, then it’s part of Sacred Tradition?

 

[Church_Militant]

Right. I used to find it annoying that everything I read about Tradition seemed to talk about Scripture in the same breath (Can’t they just tell me why they’re different? ). But considering both are part of the one Divine Revelation, you cannot really talk about one without talking about the other.

The Assumption of Moses was not part of Jewish Sacred tradition though? Wasn’t it non-cannonical jewish text? Or am I misinterpreting you?

True, but then it seems obvious that St. Jude, having been a devout Jew had been taught this as history and so included it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, right?

So if it’s a traditional custom (liturgical custom) or a traditional account (such as Veronica wiping the face of Christ during his 2nd fall on his way to calvary) then the tradition is just a tradition; not Sacred Tradition? Am I correct here?

While if the tradition is carried via the organ of apostolic teaching and is related to doctrine, then it’s part of Sacred Tradition?

Pretty close, though I don’t know if that’s the way I’d express it and I’m sure that there are others better qualified to do so than me. (Like Popes, bishops, and Church Doctors. ) Doesn’t CA have some articles on Tradition that will help us out here?

 

[JaKael02]

True, but then it seems obvious that St. Jude, having been a devout Jew had been taught this as history and so included it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, right?

You sparked my curiousity. So I went to my bread & butter source for Biblical interpretation (Ignatius Catholic Bible study by Scott Hahn & Curtis Miller). Regarding this Jude verse 9. This is what it had to say:

You are right. I’m not qualified either. But this seems to be the weakness in many forum posts here on CAF b/c we can not meaningfully convey how S. Tradition works in regards to these very sensitive and debatable topics. Myself included big time!

Good discussion so far.

James

 

[JaKael02]

COLOR=Navy]Pretty close, though I don’t know if that’s the way I’d express it and I’m sure that there are others better qualified to do so than me. (Like Popes, bishops, and Church Doctors. ) Doesn’t CA have some articles on Tradition that will help us out here?

I did read the whole Catholic Encyclopedia article on Tradition. It’s very technical but if read slowly, a reader can understand it. It has been a good source for me and I will have to use that for future debates with the Christians who do not subscribe to Sacred Tradition.

 

[Semiyah]

Do Catholics do a poor job at explaining Sacred Tradition?

Often on this forum Catholics debate a variety of issues and we use the early Church fathers, Bible, and magisterium documents to defend our position. But it seems like many of the positions can be properly explained if we could properly explain how Sacred Tradition works.

Debates I’m thinking of are Papacy, Sacraments, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Eucharist (real presense vs Symbolic), etc.

I personally know I’m “horrible” at explaining Sacred Tradition and typically resort to other sources for proof. But typically the proofs I attempt to defend was confided to the Church as a deposit and not always explicitly written in a way that can be sufficiently explained using 1 or 2nd century documents.

Thoughts?

Yes, from my own experience I can say that a good size proportion of catholics have trouble explaining or imparting our faith to others and explaining Sacred tradition.

I think the best document to look at in regards to aspects of our faith would be our catechism more than anything else primarily. Being comprehensive, the catechism should have something about Sacred Tradition as well.

Then I recommend the St. Paul centre for biblical theology at www.salvationhistory.com. Also worth having a look is www.catholic.com. This is I believe, a good site and specifically made by our apologists who are scholars in different areas of theology such as Dr. Hahn. They also have videos and audio material. They might have something about Sacred tradition there.

 

[JaKael02]

Yes, from my own experience I can say that a good size proportion of catholics have trouble explaining or imparting our faith to others and explaining Sacred tradition.

Agreed!

I think the best document to look at in regards to aspects of our faith would be our catechism more than anything else primarily. Being comprehensive, the catechism should have something about Sacred Tradition as well.

I can’t recommend the Catechism enough.

Then I recommend the St. Paul centre for biblical theology at www.salvationhistory.com.

I’ll check it out. Thanks!

 

[Semiyah]

Agreed!

I can’t recommend the Catechism enough.

I’ll check it out. Thanks!

I did a search of Sacred Tradition at www.catholic.com and found good searches and answers. Try www.catholic.com as well. Chances are, it might give us more information about sacred tradition because subject range goes beyond biblical theology. I read a quick answer a few minutes ago in response to an argument for scripture only and not tradition and it was very insightful.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well Joe, ya gotta remember that even Sacred Scripture itself actually comes to us through Sacred Tradition, right?

This is perhaps the one point that is universally well understood and accepted by Catholics, yet summarily rejected by Protestants in the context of any sola scriptura debate.

It would be nice if we all enjoyed a more developed sense of this reality as a foundation for doing a better job at explaining Sacred Traditions to those outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Taestron]

I don’t think Catholics are particularly bad at explaining Sacred Scripture. I know my understanding on the issue has grown considerably by spending time here on these forums. I think that the problem is that many choose not to listen, preferring instead to cling to caricatures of doctrines.

An analogous situation occurs whenever sola scriptura debates come up.

 

[JaKael02]

I don’t think Catholics are particularly bad at explaining Sacred Scripture. I know my understanding on the issue has grown considerably by spending time here on these forums. I think that the problem is that many choose not to listen, preferring instead to cling to caricatures of doctrines.

An analogous situation occurs whenever sola scriptura debates come up.

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback. What is a caricature? Teach me!

I assume you do to adhear to Sacred Tradition since you are Nazarene?

Kindly,

James

 

[Taestron]

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback. What is a caricature? Teach me!

I assume you do to adhear to Sacred Tradition since you are Nazarene?

Kindly,

James

I meant Tradition not Scripture in that quote, BTW. But I don’t hold to Sacred Tradition per se. I obey what my Church teaches me, but I am constantly searching whether or not she teaches the truth since she does not teach that her doctrines are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The caricature on the Protestant end comes in various forms. They think that Catholicism is a work salvation, or that Catholics worship Mary and the other saints. These positions are clearly not true if one just took the time to listen to what Catholics believe. The caricature regarding Sacred Tradition is that Catholics do not read or follow the Bible preferring the opinion of man (tradition). If Protestants could lose these caricatures, I believe that dialogue would go much more smoother.

Now, not to be unfair to the Protestants, Catholics need to lose caricatures of Protestant doctrine as well, such as viewing sola scriptura as meaning that every doctrine needs to be explicitly taught in Scripture in order to be believed.

 

[JaKael02]

I meant Tradition not Scripture in that quote, BTW. But I don’t hold to Sacred Tradition per se. I obey what my Church teaches me, but I am constantly searching whether or not she teaches the truth since she does not teach that her doctrines are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The caricature on the Protestant end comes in various forms. They think that Catholicism is a work salvation, or that Catholics worship Mary and the other saints. These positions are clearly not true if one just took the time to listen to what Catholics believe. The caricature regarding Sacred Tradition is that Catholics do not read or follow the Bible preferring the opinion of man (tradition). If Protestants could lose these caricatures, I believe that dialogue would go much more smoother.

Now, not to be unfair to the Protestants, Catholics need to lose caricatures of Protestant doctrine as well, such as viewing sola scriptura as meaning that every doctrine needs to be explicitly taught in Scripture in order to be believed.

Good deal. That explains caricature’s well. I learned something today. When you referred to Church in the first paragraph, did you mean the doctrine of your Nazarene Church?

I agree, many Catholics do not have a good understanding of Protestant doctrine. The whole idea of implicit and explicit teachings regarding the Deposit of Faith is an interesting piece of theology. I’m always trying to learn more about this.

Kindly - James