Evaluating Sacred Tradition

[kempo1]

we know Jesus condemned tradition, but what he condemned are those that contradict what we know from devine revalation to be God’s will. St. Paul told the Thessalonians how to discern the truth from error. “Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral [tradition] or by letter of ours[Scripture]”(2Thes2:15)

 

[dnu]

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

To start, I have difficulty trusting a website that cannot get even the most simple of facts correct. Near the top of the article, it says that there are 72 books in the Christian Canon, this is false. There are 73 books in the Christian Canon. The sects that Protest the Christian Church do have 66 though, at least your site got that correct.

Lets put all library verses aside and approach this honestly.

These types of situations are where the infallibility of the Pope makes absolute, plain, good 'ole common sense. Someone has to be able to bang the gavel and say “so be it.” This where Mathew 16:18 comes in, this is where Jesus Promise that the gates of Hell will never rise against the Church come in.

This is why there must be a Pope.

This is why Jesus made Peter, and by extension his succesors, the rock upon which he would build his Church and entrust his earthly authority to. Again, we don’t have to haggle over bible versus, we can just use common sense.

 

[BrianH]

To start, I have difficulty trusting a website that cannot get even the most simple of facts correct. Near the top of the article, it says that there are 72 books in the Christian Canon, this is false. There are 73 books in the Christian Canon. The sects that Protest the Christian Church do have 66 though, at least your site got that correct.

Lets put all library verses aside and approach this honestly.

These types of situations are where the infallibility of the Pope makes absolute, plain, good 'ole common sense. Someone has to be able to bang the gavel and say “so be it.” This where Mathew 16:18 comes in, this is where Jesus Promise that the gates of Hell will never rise against the Church come in.

This is why there must be a Pope.

This is why Jesus made Peter, and by extension his succesors, the rock upon which he would build his Church and entrust his earthly authority to. Again, we don’t have to haggle over bible versus, we can just use common sense.

LOL
Its a CATHOLIC site… Its certainly not my site I wonder if he combined books?
As far as the rest of your argument, it absolutely does not make sense to all of the other Apostolic Christians. I look at all of the groups that have valid Apostolic Succession and that is ONE of the things they agree on…which is interesting to me.
I appreciate you answering though.

 

[dnu]

LOL
Its a CATHOLIC site… Its certainly not my site I wonder if he combined books?
As far as the rest of your argument, it absolutely does not make sense to all of the other Apostolic Christians. I look at all of the groups that have valid Apostolic Succession and that is ONE of the things they agree on…which is interesting to me.
I appreciate you answering though.

Ah, you are correct. Many Churches have valid apostolic succession. The first one that comes to mind are the 300,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians.

They, however, are not in communion with the Pope, therefore, they are schismatic.

 

[BrianH]

Ok so looking at Sacred Tradition…sticking to the Papal argument.
It is true that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of the East (Assyrian) all three distinct groups with Apostolic Succession ALL agree that they do not agree with the Catholic stance on the Papacy. That IS interesting to me as I evaluate things. It…just is…

 

[dnu]

Ok so looking at Sacred Tradition…sticking to the Papal argument.
It is true that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of the East (Assyrian) all three distinct groups with Apostolic Succession ALL agree that they do not agree with the Catholic stance on the Papacy. That IS interesting to me as I evaluate things. It…just is…

There are many topics about this same issue (Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrians, etc.) scattered througout the forums here at Catholic.com

If you look through some of those you will find people that are far, far more knowledgable than I am about the historical, political, and theological differences between the RCC and the other groups.

It obviously doesn’t seem to me that they have caught onto this thread yet, but If you can stumble across one of them I’m sure they would be happy to share what they know about it with you.

 

[BrianH]

There are many topics about this same issue (Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrians, etc.) scattered througout the forums here at Catholic.com

If you look through some of those you will find people that are far, far more knowledgable than I am about the historical, political, and theological differences between the RCC and the other groups.

It obviously doesn’t seem to me that they have caught onto this thread yet, but If you can stumble across one of them I’m sure they would be happy to share what they know about it with you.

See, I know about them. Quite a bit. But that is the kicker. The more I learn, the more I see the differences and not the unity. See, I did not go into it that way at all. Its been surprising. A lot of the differences boil down to…being brief here…patristic perspectives…traditions that become it appears Sacred Tradition for the groups right down to issues like the different canons they use. So in evaluating the different groups, their histories, their claims, it almost seems like it cannot be reconciled enough to make sense out of it.
In other words, the Church spread. When they did, there are things that are absolutely the same but too many things that are different for me to process them without a framework for evaluation.
Now I can say, which one is more historically accurate. So I have to decide my framework for that first. I have tons of history courses under my belt so I get that from a secular perspective. From a theistic or Christian perspective though, other things come into play and those are extremely difficult to sort out.

 

[The_Geographer]

See, I know about them. Quite a bit. But that is the kicker. The more I learn, the more I see the differences and not the unity. See, I did not go into it that way at all. Its been surprising. A lot of the differences boil down to…being brief here…patristic perspectives…traditions that become it appears Sacred Tradition for the groups right down to issues like the different canons they use. So in evaluating the different groups, their histories, their claims, it almost seems like it cannot be reconciled enough to make sense out of it.
In other words, the Church spread. When they did, there are things that are absolutely the same but too many things that are different for me to process them without a framework for evaluation.
Now I can say, which one is more historically accurate. So I have to decide my framework for that first. I have tons of history courses under my belt so I get that from a secular perspective. From a theistic or Christian perspective though, other things come into play and those are extremely difficult to sort out.

“Do not cast your pearls before swine”. Interesting. Are you a former Catholic gone amuck. Most Methodist could care less what faith tradition someone is. I have many Catholics that have gone to Methodist Churches mainly because they don’t seem to believe anything and don’ pressure anyone. Only ex-Catholics seem to push with this kind of attitude. I know because I used to be one until I actually read the ACF. Only I actually accepted what I read because I actually have a strong bible foundation to build on. St. Jerome tell us that not knowing scripture is to not knowing Christ. After testing everything I come across I test it. When I test something and it doesn’t seem to work I’ll say so. But Sacred Tradition? Even a moron could get that simple of a thing. People choose not to accept it because it makes them wrong. The irony is that they also follow a majesterium, their own faith tradition and sacred scripture. If you don’t believe me, then question the preacher or the elders of your community. I guarantee if you ask too many good questions, some if not many would set out to shut you up or disfellowship you so as not to upset the rest of their followers.

I see you have many posts. I saw your first post on this thread and answered very good, but you failed to address it and I know from experience you’ll do everything you can to diffuse the evidence. Why? Because then you know that you’d have to admit that your position is on sinking sand. But then if I missed something, like skimming to lightly, then I apologize. I love it when people start acting like their experts in one field or the other. Most of the time they’re blowing smoke… Catholics and Protestants that are weak in these areas buckle under pressure or try to take the higher road much too lightly for my taste. I’m the kind of guy that kicks someone in the teeth when they try to bully me. It’s sore of equalizes the playing field. After all we are fighting for souls.

 

[BrianH]

“Do not cast your pearls before swine”. Interesting. Are you a former Catholic gone amuck. Most Methodist could care less what faith tradition someone is. I have many Catholics that have gone to Methodist Churches mainly because they don’t seem to believe anything and don’ pressure anyone. Only ex-Catholics seem to push with this kind of attitude. I know because I used to be one until I actually read the ACF. Only I actually accepted what I read because I actually have a strong bible foundation to build on. St. Jerome tell us that not knowing scripture is to not knowing Christ. After testing everything I come across I test it. When I test something and it doesn’t seem to work I’ll say so. But Sacred Tradition? Even a moron could get that simple of a thing. People choose not to accept it because it makes them wrong. The irony is that they also follow a majesterium, their own faith tradition and sacred scripture. If you don’t believe me, then question the preacher or the elders of your community. I guarantee if you ask too many good questions, some if not many would set out to shut you up or disfellowship you so as not to upset the rest of their followers.

I see you have many posts. I saw your first post on this thread and answered very good, but you failed to address it and I know from experience you’ll do everything you can to diffuse the evidence. Why? Because then you know that you’d have to admit that your position is on sinking sand. But then if I missed something, like skimming to lightly, then I apologize. I love it when people start acting like their experts in one field or the other. Most of the time they’re blowing smoke… Catholics and Protestants that are weak in these areas buckle under pressure or try to take the higher road much too lightly for my taste. I’m the kind of guy that kicks someone in the teeth when they try to bully me. It’s sore of equalizes the playing field. After all we are fighting for souls.

I believe the only direct question was whether I have been a Catholic. No.
Good luck with that teeth kicking thing.
So you have been banned and came back, is that correct?

 

[NDfan]

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.

DNU I’m quite familiar with everything you are saying and quite frequently our Pastor(s) reference the “Bible” as a collection of works. But you are completely incorrect when you say the Bible has no authority. In fact the word bible lower case “b” means a book regarded as authoritative. Which is why when certain books are referenced as being “authoritative” on any subject matter whether it be medicine, investments, history etc. etc. it’s often referred to the “bible” of that subject matter.

You reference the early church fathers which is a good point. Ignatius was the first to push for a canonized list of works to be held within the church. Why? Because heretical teachings like those of the gnostics, the montanists, the marcionites etc. started to invade church teachings. Ignatius viewed scripture as the authoritative source to combat these teachings. Incidentally Jesus did not found the Roman Catholic Church as it did not even exist. That’s a claim the RCC makes for itself based on the succession of Peter because he was martyred in Rome. But given Peter founded many churches along with Paul, John etc. etc. any church today can claim some type of Apostolic succession to assert its authority. But of course let’s not derail the thread.

 

[NDfan]

I don’t want the bigger question answered.
Just mine

Ok I think many evaluate tradition against what is written in the works of the early church fathers. Those works being outside of scripture. Many times I ask the question of “did the early church celebrate this” or “how did the early church do this or that”. When we don’t have an answer for that then I don’t consider a tradition to be sacred. It doesn’t mean I won’t partake in that tradition. Lent and Ash wednesday are good examples. The earliest findings we have for ash wednesday go back to 400ad. But there’s no evidence that the early church abstained from meat on fridays during lent or completely during lent. So in evaluating this tradition I see no evidence for adhering to that teaching. Conversley the elements of ash wednesday are very scriptural. Throwing ash or dirt on one’s self was a symbolic gesture to GOD as recognition of being a sinner and that we are nothing more than dust which is what GOD created Adam from to begin with. The 40 days of Lent and fasting itself are found in scripture given Christ walked the desert for this same time frame while fasting.

 

[NDfan]

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.

Please show me where the Bible makes this statement. Chapter and verse.

 

[NDfan]

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.

Loboto this is untrue. Canonized books were not evaluated against tradition.

 

[NDfan]

See, I know about them. Quite a bit. But that is the kicker. The more I learn, the more I see the differences and not the unity. See, I did not go into it that way at all. Its been surprising. A lot of the differences boil down to…being brief here…patristic perspectives…traditions that become it appears Sacred Tradition for the groups right down to issues like the different canons they use. So in evaluating the different groups, their histories, their claims, it almost seems like it cannot be reconciled enough to make sense out of it.
In other words, the Church spread. When they did, there are things that are absolutely the same but too many things that are different for me to process them without a framework for evaluation.
Now I can say, which one is more historically accurate. So I have to decide my framework for that first. I have tons of history courses under my belt so I get that from a secular perspective. From a theistic or Christian perspective though, other things come into play and those are extremely difficult to sort out.

Brian I’d like to ask one simple question as I share your frustration in what seems to be large dis-unity. Does sacred tradition have anything to do with our salvation? In other words if I follow the sacred traditions of a non-denominational church instead of the Roman Catholic church does that jeopardize my salvation? Both the non-denominational church and Roman Catholic church view Christ as our savior and teach that salvation is only through HIS blood at the cross. So then do traditions like fasting on certain days, celebrating certain feast days etc. etc. really mean anything in the grand scheme of things?? I say absolutely not.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Loboto this is untrue. Canonized books were not evaluated against tradition.

This quote tells me different:

■ Papias of Hierapolis (c. 150 AD.) wrote in the Introduction to his book on the Interpretation of the Words of the Lord:

“I shall not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, all the information I have ever carefully gathered from the presbyters. I carefully committed it to memory and vouch for its truth. In fact, unlike most people, I did not care for men who gave the longest accounts, but for men whose teachings were true; nor yet for men who reported the commandments of others, but for such as related those given by the Lord to be believed and stemming directly from the Truth. But when someone turned up who had been closely associated with the presbyters, it was the words of the presbyters that I would ascertain . . . I simply took for granted that book knowledge would not help me so much as a living or still surviving voice.” (Fragment 2, ACW trans.)

Seems word of mouth/tradition was the most important factor in early days. Now since the Church put those books together, knowing what Tradition was from the start, common sense would tell you that they would reject documents which would go against what was already known by the Church at that time.

Now show me how you know that it wasn’t measured against Sacred Tradition?

 

[Roblox84]

Brian I’d like to ask one simple question as I share your frustration in what seems to be large dis-unity. Does sacred tradition have anything to do with our salvation? In other words if I follow the sacred traditions of a non-denominational church instead of the Roman Catholic church does that jeopardize my salvation? Both the non-denominational church and Roman Catholic church view Christ as our savior and teach that salvation is only through HIS blood at the cross. So then do traditions like fasting on certain days, celebrating certain feast days etc. etc. really mean anything in the grand scheme of things?? I say absolutely not.

I wouldn’t say you would loose your salvation. But the reason why I do them is because I trust in my Church teachings and also trust that God wanted me and other Christians to participate in sacred tradition. I believe people that don’t participate in sacred tradition have somewhat lost their faith in the Church that Christ established on earth. These people then tend to have their own traditions to replace them, such as bible only, etc…

 

[The_Geographer]

I believe the only direct question was whether I have been a Catholic. No.
Good luck with that teeth kicking thing.
So you have been banned and came back, is that correct?

NO. I’m transitioning on my own free will because I’m changing careers and moving to this user name because it’s what I truly am degree wise and want to teach.

And as far as kicking teeth in, I’m sure you’re not dumb enough to think I mean that literally. Because if you do, I have some ocean front property in Arizona, and for you I’ll throw the golden gate in free.

 

[CWBetts]

Loboto this is untrue. Canonized books were not evaluated against tradition.

It is a grave error to remove the Canon of Scripture from its context. The Context of Scripture is not simply itself. The Canon of Scripture did not just come out of nothing. The Canon arose out of the early Liturgy, and was decided at four councils in the 4th century (Carthage 1&2, Hippo, and Rome). So not only did the Canon grow out of one form of Tradition (the Liturgy), it was verified by another form of Tradition (Councils). To try to separate the Canon from Tradition is just plain silly.

 

[The_Geographer]

It is a grave error to remove the Canon of Scripture from its context. The Context of Scripture is not simply itself. The Canon of Scripture did not just come out of nothing. The Canon arose out of the early Liturgy, and was decided at four councils in the 4th century (Carthage 1&2, Hippo, and Rome). So not only did the Canon grow out of one form of Tradition (the Liturgy), it was verified by another form of Tradition (Councils). To try to separate the Canon from Tradition is just plain silly.

 

[BrianH]

NO. I’m transitioning on my own free will because I’m changing careers and moving to this user name because it’s what I truly am degree wise and want to teach.

And as far as kicking teeth in, I’m sure you’re not dumb enough to think I mean that literally. Because if you do, I have some ocean front property in Arizona, and for you I’ll throw the golden gate in free.

What about my response would have made you think I took that literally?