Fred’s original question about Sacred Tradition:
Where does one find it? How can it be accessed if this was Christs plan?
His response to my answer:
Did not answer these two. Its a set up too.
Thank you for being so forthcoming. . .It’s nice to get the heads up!
As I cited before: CCC paragraph 81: “Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
To clarify: Sacred Tradition, like Sacred Scripture, is the charge of the Church, which is her ward. Sacred Tradition, like Sacred Scripture, is “accessed” through the teaching authority of the Church, which we have come to accept through the unbroken line of Apostolic succession. We accept the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition as they have been passed down to us throughout Christendom.
Well so much for my plan. You just used one of my best verses 5 o 6 posts too soon. Guys look at this. Luke wrote to show how reliable the oral tradition was. We agree that there was an oral tradition. We have that tradition now in writing. Luke indicates that writring it shows how reliable it is. Catholicism wants you to believe that Sarcred Tradition contains teachings that are just as important but they cannot tell you where they came from.
Again, please provide the named source for the letter to the Hebrews. . .Where’d that come from? How do you know it is Scritpural?
You still have not proven your position—beyond your own “private interpretation” and teaching tradition—that Luke, or any other Scripture writer, wrote in an effort to supplant Tradition.
We both agree that Luke, for one, writes to “show how reliable the oral tradition was,” but he gives no indication that what he is writing is the final word on all truth. Certainly, one may surmise that he is writing the things he thinks important, but we have no reason to believe that Luke thought once he wrote his narrative that Tradition then took a back seat. Which I believe is your position?
Guys, they wrote because the Holy Spirit inspired them to do such.
And we recognize their writings as Scriptural because. . .?
Catholicism believes the authors were inspired too.
The Catholic Church not only believes the authors of Sacred Scripture were inspired, but she also was guided by the Holy Spirit to recognize and preserve Sacred Scripture for all of Christendom.
Why exactly would you believe the Church is right about Sacred Scripture and not Sacred Tradtion?
The key point is that they did write it down.
If “writing it down” was sufficient evidence of inspiration, our New Testament canon would be whole lot longer than 27 books!
I submit that the “key point”, rather, is that the Church had the authority to say which writings were Scriptural, so why not believe that she has the authority to identify Tradition as well?
Once again, you have not proven your position—beyond your own “private interpretation” and teaching tradition—that Luke, or any other Scripture writer, wrote in an effort to supplant Tradition.
Scripturally speaking, how do you KNOW that the Sacred Scripture writers wrote as a means of making Tradition inferior?
