Evaluating Sacred Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrianH

Guest
How does one evaluate the specific claims and teachings of a church as they relate to Tradition?

We discuss scripture frequently. It has been said that scripture cannot contradict scripture. Not that I agree with that but I understand the argument at least. However, clearly that is not the case with tradition. So what criteria have others used?
This is probably geared towards converts.
 
Nothing in Church Tradition contradicts the Scriptures. In fact, any Tradition that would contradict Scripture would be invalid.

Most, if not all, of the time a Protestant sect alleges the Catholic Church contradicts scripture it is due to differing understandings of a word.

For instance, regarding Mary, the Saints, etc., Catholics do not “worship” them, the Catholic Church “venerates” them. Catholic Theology has differring types of veneration, such as Latria, Dulia, Hyper-Dulia, etc. etc.

The Protestant sects don’t differentiate though. They lump “worship,” “venerate,” adoration," etc. etc. all together into one meaning and say Catholics “worship” Mary in contradiction with Scripture.

Does that make sense?
 
dnu said:
Nothing in Church Tradition contradicts the Scriptures. In fact, any Tradition that would contradict Scripture would be invalid.

Most, if not all, of the time a Protestant sect alleges the Catholic Church contradicts scripture it is due to differing understandings of a word.

For instance, regarding Mary, the Saints, etc., Catholics do not “worship” them, the Catholic Church “venerates” them. Catholic Theology has differring types of veneration, such as Latria, Dulia, Hyper-Dulia, etc. etc.

The Protestant sects don’t differentiate though. They lump “worship,” “venerate,” adoration," etc. etc. all together into one meaning and say Catholics “worship” Mary in contradiction with Scripture.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
How does one decide that scripture and tradition do not/cannot conflict?
Based upon what?
 
dnu said:
Nothing in Church Tradition contradicts the Scriptures. In fact, any Tradition that would contradict Scripture would be invalid.

Most, if not all, of the time a Protestant sect alleges the Catholic Church contradicts scripture it is due to differing understandings of a word.

For instance, regarding Mary, the Saints, etc., Catholics do not “worship” them, the Catholic Church “venerates” them. Catholic Theology has differring types of veneration, such as Latria, Dulia, Hyper-Dulia, etc. etc.

The Protestant sects don’t differentiate though. They lump “worship,” “venerate,” adoration," etc. etc. all together into one meaning and say Catholics “worship” Mary in contradiction with Scripture.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Maybe a bigger question is how does one validate sacred tradition not recorded in scripture?? Celebrating Easter, Christmas, the Feast days etc. etc. No scriptural references for these can be found anywhere yet many Catholic and Protestant Christians observe them. Many Protestants will not adhere to sacred tradition because they categorize them as man made traditions which scripture gives warnings against.
 
NDfan said:
Maybe a bigger question is how does one validate sacred tradition not recorded in scripture?? Celebrating Easter, Christmas, the Feast days etc. etc. No scriptural references for these can be found anywhere yet many Catholic and Protestant Christians observe them. Many Protestants will not adhere to sacred tradition because they categorize them as man made traditions which scripture gives warnings against.
Click to expand...
I don’t want the bigger question answered.
Just mine:D
 
BrianH said:
How does one decide that scripture and tradition do not/cannot conflict?
Based upon what?
Click to expand...
Well, based on sacred tradition. I know that logically it seems circular, but you have to start somewhere. Basically the teaching of the Church is that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are all part of God teaching us about Himself. Obviously Truth cannot contradict itself. That would not make sense. So the different ways of teaching truth do not contain real contradictions.
 
NDfan said:
Maybe a bigger question is how does one validate sacred tradition not recorded in scripture?? Celebrating Easter, Christmas, the Feast days etc. etc. No scriptural references for these can be found anywhere yet many Catholic and Protestant Christians observe them. Many Protestants will not adhere to sacred tradition because they categorize them as man made traditions which scripture gives warnings against.
Click to expand...
Well, the first place to start would be by recognizing that the Holy Library is neither a novel, nor a Theological treatise. Not one of the New Testament authros knew they were writing what would someday become “The Bible.”

Remember, “Bible” comes from the greek “biblios” which means book/library. So, the “Holy Bible” is nothing more than the “Holy Library.”

If one takes the time to read the Early Church Fathers and attempts to understand its place in the early church, as well as its place in history, one will see that “The Bible” is just that, a reference library used to get ones bearings when dealing with manners of the Church, but NOT the sole authority of the Christian Church.

Protestants sects do everything they can to avoid calling it “The Library” because they know that if their congregation ever took the time to think that one over and recognize the implications of the New Testament being nothing more than a collection of inspired books and NOT an instruction manual meant to be an authority, their congregation might start dipping their toes in the Tiber.

“The Bible” sounds so much more authoritative and mesmorizing than “The Library,” doesn’t it? Ask your Pastor why he won’t just call it “The Library.”

Think of it in terms of your local Public Library. You may very well go there for pieces of information or to research a topic, but you would never use ONLY the material from your library would you, especially if your library was very small (lets pretend your library only had 27 books in its entire building). If you want to build a shed, but the library doesn’t have any books on shed building, you’re going to have to go elsewhere, no? Likewise, if you’re a Christian in the early centuries of the Church wanting to set a day to celebrate the Resurrection or Birth of Jesus, and your library (New Testament) doesn’t contain what you need, you’re going to have to go elsewhere. This “elsewhere” is the authoritative, hierarchical (spelling?), teaching-Church Jesus founded, which is today the Roman Catholic Church.
 
BrianH said:
How does one evaluate the specific claims and teachings of a church as they relate to Tradition?

We discuss scripture frequently. It has been said that scripture cannot contradict scripture. Not that I agree with that but I understand the argument at least. However, clearly that is not the case with tradition. So what criteria have others used?
This is probably geared towards converts.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true. Sacred Tradition also can not contradict Scripture and doesn’t. One must understand, first, the proper way to interpret scripture before making such claims.

I listened to Fr. John Corapi on March 18, 2010 in his restored true form. He is a wonderful orthodox priest. Former Navy Seal. Went to new lows before discovering his vocation. This is what he had to say about 3 principles for properfly interpreting scripture:
  1. Code: 
       Read scripture as a totality
  2. Code: 
       Read written word of God in the light of Sacred Tradition
  3. Code: 
       Apply the analogy of the faith
Ex. Eliminate heresies like there is another extra book or 11 commandments
 
The_Geographer said:
That’s simply not true. Sacred Tradition also can not contradict Scripture and doesn’t. One must understand, first, the proper way to interpret scripture before making such claims.
Click to expand...
Let me be clearer then because this answer could only result from my lack of clarity. There are existing tradtions that are at odds. This is not talking about big T Tradition YET. When you declare them as Sacred Tradition, or they are thought to be that way, I get your point. But prior to that, we have a huge body of writings that exist. Objectively, what criteria would be used?
 
BrianH said:
Let me be clearer then because this answer could only result from my lack of clarity. There are existing tradtions that are at odds. This is not talking about big T Tradition YET. When you declare them as Sacred Tradition, or they are thought to be that way, I get your point. But prior to that, we have a huge body of writings that exist. Objectively, what criteria would be used?
Click to expand...
usccb.org/catechism/text/

read this first.😉
 
dnu said:
Well, the first place to start would be by recognizing that the Holy Library is neither a novel, nor a Theological treatise. Not one of the New Testament authros knew they were writing what would someday become “The Bible.”

Remember, “Bible” comes from the greek “biblios” which means book/library. So, the “Holy Bible” is nothing more than the “Holy Library.”

If one takes the time to read the Early Church Fathers and attempts to understand its place in the early church, as well as its place in history, one will see that “The Bible” is just that, a reference library used to get ones bearings when dealing with manners of the Church, but NOT the sole authority of the Christian Church.

Protestants sects do everything they can to avoid calling it “The Library” because they know that if their congregation ever took the time to think that one over and recognize the implications of the New Testament being nothing more than a collection of inspired books and NOT an instruction manual meant to be an authority, their congregation might start dipping their toes in the Tiber.

“The Bible” sounds so much more authoritative and mesmorizing than “The Library,” doesn’t it? Ask your Pastor why he won’t just call it “The Library.”

Think of it in terms of your local Public Library. You may very well go there for pieces of information or to research a topic, but you would never use ONLY the material from your library would you, especially if your library was very small (lets pretend your library only had 27 books in its entire building). If you want to build a shed, but the library doesn’t have any books on shed building, you’re going to have to go elsewhere, no? Likewise, if you’re a Christian in the early centuries of the Church wanting to set a day to celebrate the Resurrection or Birth of Jesus, and your library (New Testament) doesn’t contain what you need, you’re going to have to go elsewhere. This “elsewhere” is the authoritative, hierarchical (spelling?), teaching-Church Jesus founded, which is today the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
What’s funny about that is that the bible itself states that it is to be used for reference and not as the final authority. A 5 year old could even get at this conclusion, but sadly most adults cant.
 
This is not a thread about whether Tradition should be used, my intention is to ask how do you evaluate different claims as it regards to the formation of their particular forms of Tradition.
 
BrianH said:
This is not a thread about whether Tradition should be used, my intention is to ask how do you evaluate different claims as it regards to the formation of their particular forms of Tradition.
Click to expand...
Are you asking that if “Person A” and “Person B” both submit Traditions for consideration (perhaps these two contradict?), how does the Church decide between the two?
 
dnu said:
Are you asking that if “Person A” and “Person B” both submit Traditions for consideration (perhaps these two contradict?), how does the Church decide between the two?
Click to expand...
Yes somewhat but to be perfectly frank I am to be more accurate evaluating
Church A, B, C, D, and E. No names because I think it would detract. They believe in Scripture and Tradition but they have different Traditions (big T)
 
Is what you’re asking this:

For example, Church A and Church B both claim that divine revelation is found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (or that Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition), but hold Church A says that something is part of Sacred Tradition, but Church B says that it is not, or that something else is part of Tradition that Church A does not accept.

?

If so, I think this comes down to, what exactly is Sacred Tradition, and where is it, and how do we know that something is part of it.

Right? 🙂
 
BrianH said:
Thanks. I have. It presupposes a belief in Sacred Tradition and does not answer how one who is evaluating the claims would do so. Not that it should…but it doesn’t…
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
Click to expand...
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew23.htm
Isaiah 22:22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
Click to expand...
2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Click to expand...
2 Timothy 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Click to expand...
be back later. I’m dropping the son I baptized as an evangelical Christian in the Church of Christ. Surprise. 😉
 
From what I understand Sacred Scripture was evaluated against Sacred Tradition, meaning that the books that went into the bible were chosen because they didn’t go against Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition existed way before the writtings came to become the bible and in order to decipher which books were inspired, these had to be measured against what the Church already knew through Tradition.
 
TheosisM said:
Is what you’re asking this:

For example, Church A and Church B both claim that divine revelation is found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (or that Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition), but hold Church A says that something is part of Sacred Tradition, but Church B says that it is not, or that something else is part of Tradition that Church A does not accept.

?

If so, I think this comes down to, what exactly is Sacred Tradition, and where is it, and how do we know that something is part of it.

Right? 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes. That is my question.
 
Loboto-Me said:
From what I understand Sacred Scripture was evaluated against Sacred Tradition, meaning that the books that went into the bible were chosen because they didn’t go against Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition existed way before the writtings came to become the bible and in order to decipher which books were inspired, these had to be measured against what the Church already knew through Tradition.
Click to expand...
This is at the core of what I am asking. This did occur and as a perfect example different parts of the Church picked different books. The Tradition differed even in regards to the canon.
beutel.narod.ru/write/canon.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top