Is Sacred Tradition Authoritative Interpretation?

[mo3]

Since all Sacred Tradition is backed up by Sacred Scripture, couldn’t Sacred Tradition be better described in today’s time period as the Authoritative Interpretation of Sacred Scripture?

 

[davidv]

No. That’s not its title. Since Tradition is more than Scripture, your proposed title would be too restrictive.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Mo,

The thing to remember is that Scripture and Tradition are two parts of the same thing : God’s revealed word. Scripure supports Tradition and Tradition supports Scripture.

Verbum

 

[Penitus]

Since all Sacred Tradition is backed up by Sacred Scripture, couldn’t Sacred Tradition be better described in today’s time period as the Authoritative Interpretation of Sacred Scripture?

No because Sacred Traditions (those traditions handed down from the Apostles to their successors to their successors to their successors and so on etc.) existed before anything was written down by roughly 10 years.

That is, Sacred Tradition preceeded Sacred Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Can someone give me an offical list of what exactly these sacred traditions were for the first 500 years after the apostles died?

 

[Protestant101]

Can someone give me an offical list of what exactly these sacred traditions were for the first 500 years after the apostles died?

I know the Catechism does not put it this way; but the way I see it, the Bible would actually be the best, and most authoritative descriptor of Sacred Tradition.

“We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in the times of old.” Ps.44:1

This verse is talking about Sacred Tradition being passed on orally, by Word of mouth. Sacred Tradition is carefully spelled out in the Bible, so that we do not make any mistakes as to what it is. Look closely again here at Ps.44…it goes on to describe what it was the people “heard with their ears,” and they heard about what work God did in the days of their Fathers.

Ps.44:2 How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out.
**3 ** For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them.

What land was it that they “got” here, and how did they get it? This is all a part of the “Tradition” passed down from one generation to another - for all Christians, of all denominations.

The Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt involved many different things. Bible principles reflected in this “Tradition” would all support the Bible.

 

[mercygate]

I know the Catechism does not put it this way; but the way I see it, the Bible would actually be the best, and most authoritative descriptor of Sacred Tradition.

This verse is talking about Sacred Tradition being passed on orally, by Word of mouth. Sacred Tradition is carefully spelled out in the Bible, so that we do not make any mistakes as to what it is. Look closely again here at Ps.44…it goes on to describe what it was the people “heard with their ears,” and they heard about what work God did in the days of their Fathers.

What land was it that they “got” here, and how did they get it? This is all a part of the “Tradition” passed down from one generation to another - for all Christians, of all denominations.

The Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt involved many different things. Bible principles reflected in this “Tradition” would all support the Bible.

Much of what the Church receives as Tradition, such as infant Baptism and sacramental Confession, comes out of the actual practice of the Church in the Apostolic age – we have it shown in documents from the first and second centuries. Such documents illuminate the dim spots of Scripture and are part of Sacred Tradition.

In fact, Scripture itself is part of Sacred Tradition. I would go along with the view that Sacred Tradition includes authoritative interpretation of Scripture but interpretation of Scripture does not sum up its role.

Another example would be the defintion of the relationship of Christ to the Godhead by the word “homoousion” – that word is absolutely essential to the definition of the Person of Jesus Christ but nowhere is it found in Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided the choice of that word: via the Council, the vestigial elements of the Trinity so lightly limned in Scripture are codified and become part of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[justasking4]

What about those practices-doctrines that are not found in scripture or the church fathers? Things like priestly celibacy as requirement, praying to Mary and praying the rosary. These things are not mentioned in scripture or early teachings of the church. Are they binding? Do they carry the authority of the scriptures?

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

As a general reminder, this is the Sacred Scriptures sub-forum. If you want to pick a fight go to Apologetics.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[mercygate]

What about those practices-doctrines that are not found in scripture or the church fathers? Things like priestly celibacy as requirement, . . .

Priestly celibacy is definitely found in Scripture, from the lips of Our Lord himself as well as St. Paul. It is clearly the preferred condition for those who minister to the Church. Delineating the supporting texts here would derail this thread.

. . . praying to Mary and praying the rosary.

Prayers of the saints (for which we ask when we pray for the intercession of Our Lady and the other saints) is also found in Scripture. The rosary is simply a form of prayer. It is 90% derived from the literal words of Scripture.

These things are not mentioned in scripture or early teachings of the church.

How early is early? Celibacy is mentioned in Scripture. Prayers of the Saints are mentioned in Scripture. There is a canon of the council of Nicea addressing the continence of clergy.

Are they binding?

Clerical celibacy and the Communion of Saints are on two different levels. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, it is not a doctrine. It is binding only upon those who have promised celibacy. The early Church had both married and celibate clergy. The Latin Rite has adopted it in recognition of its origin in Our Lord himself as the model to which we should aspire as a Church. There are priests in the Catholic Church who are married. Priests of the Eastern Rites may be married. Married convert priests from the Episcopal Church from the Episcopal Church have been ordained in the Catholic Church.

No one is bound de fide to pray the rosary. We are bound to believe in the Communion of Saints as the Church understands that doctrine.

Do they carry the authority of the scriptures?

Yes.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;1740729]Priestly celibacy is definitely found in Scripture, from the lips of Our Lord himself as well as St. Paul. It is clearly the preferred condition for those who minister to the Church. Delineating the supporting texts here would derail this thread.

Jesus and Paul may have been single, but where do they mandate that for a man to be a priest he must be unmarried?

 

[justasking4]

Prayers of the saints (for which we ask when we pray for the intercession of Our Lady and the other saints) is also found in Scripture. The rosary is simply a form of prayer. It is 90% derived from the literal words of Scripture.

You wouldn’t have to have the verses for these claims would you? I’m not aware of any prayers directed to a specific dead saint. Even Revelations doesn’t support this.

How early is early? Celibacy is mentioned in Scripture.

Where in scripture is celibacy a requirement for church leadership?

Prayers of the Saints are mentioned in Scripture.

I know this claimed but when you look closely at the passages used to support this, its not there.

 

[TOME]

As I was reading the various posts of this thread I two things that really caught my eye.

First, is the correct understanding that what is at the root of the question is how do we come to know “Divine Revelation”. It is a Dogma of the Church that God’s Revelation has been given to us through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition (ref: Dei Verbum). Sometimes, and I do this myself, write that Apostolic Tradition is older than the NT and attemp to express this fact using the words (or words to the effect) that Tradition is older than the Scriptures. But this is not true when one considers that the OT preceeded Jesus, the Apostles and the Apostolic Church. However, in our Catholic belief, one cannot really understand the revelation of the OT with out understanding the NT and the NT cannot be fully appreciated without the OT (one has to just read the letters of Paul to understand this). The Apostolic Tradition (Christ’s ministry, and teachings and the true meaning of Christ’s Paschal Mystery) given to us through the teachings of the Apostles (The Twevle) and passed on through the teachings of the Church, safeguarded by the Magisterium of the Church (The Pope and all Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome). Thus, Sacred Tradition becomes imperative in interpeting the Scriptures (OT which preceeded Tradition, but only fully understood by Tradition) and NT from which the written word had its origins.

A second thing that caught my eye was the question where do we find a list of Sacred Tradition (juastasking4)? There is no book or document that is titled “The List Sacred Tradition of the Church”. However, one can find what exactly is Sacred Tradition in the Dogmas of the Church (I emphasize “Dogma” not Doctrine [with the understanding that doctrines are rooted in Dogma]), in the Creeds of the Church and the third source is in the Liturgy of the Church.

 

[mercygate]

Prayers of the saints (for which we ask when we pray for the intercession of Our Lady and the other saints) is also found in Scripture. The rosary is simply a form of prayer. It is 90% derived from the literal words of Scripture.

You wouldn’t have to have the verses for these claims would you?

Hail, [Mary], full of grace [kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women (Lk 1:28)
*and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, *[Jesus] (Lk 1:42).
*Holy Mary, mother of God [Lk 1:43], pray for us sinners [the exhortation to pray for one another is littered across the NT] now and at the hour of our death. *

I’m not aware of any prayers directed to a specific dead saint. Even Revelations doesn’t support this.

You are not aware of prayers directed to “dead saints” because you have this odd idea that the saints are dead, which, of course they are not. Jesus himself notes that the God of Abraham, Isaac & Joseph is “the God of the living.” The saints are more alive than we are. Certainly prayers of the saints are absolutely pointed out in the book of Revelation. If your faith tradition includes the Apostles’ Creed, then you claim to believe in “the communion of Saints.” When that creed was written, the phrases, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints . . .” meant that the Church was the household of the ‘saints’ and that there is “communion” among all the saints, both the saints on earth and those who have gone before us. Communion means communion. Catholics pray for those departed souls destined for final beatitude who await their final perfection just as they pray for us. If we are to follow Christ then we imitate him, both in this life and the next – this Christ who “intercedes for us,” (Rom 8:34). Prayers of the saints are definitely supported in Scripture. Since we can no longer have personal chats or write letters or send e-mails to the saints in heaven, prayer is our means of communion with them. James tells us that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Who is more righteous than those who have been received into the divine presence?

How early is early? Celibacy is mentioned in Scripture. Where in scripture is celibacy a requirement for church leadership?

This is not the right question. The question is, “what is the scriptural counsel concernng Church leadership that tends toward the greatest good.” The Catholic Church allows married men to be ordained in her Eastern Rites, and even the Latin rite allows married priests under certain particular dispensations. She has retained this feature of the ancient Church because it is clear that the Lord himself counseled it. From the earliest times, even married priests were expected to live in continence, as is canonized at the Council of Nicea – not as a new practice but in affirmation of the existing practice.

of the Saints are mentioned in Scripture.

I know this claimed but when you look closely at the passages used to support this, its not there.

Of course it is there.

 

[justasking4]

You are not aware of prayers directed to “dead saints” because you have this odd idea that the saints are dead, which, of course they are not. Jesus himself notes that the God of Abraham, Isaac & Joseph is “the God of the living.” The saints are more alive than we are. Certainly prayers of the saints are absolutely pointed out in the book of Revelation. If your faith tradition includes the Apostles’ Creed, then you claim to believe in “the communion of Saints.” When that creed was written, the phrases, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints . . .” meant that the Church was the household of the ‘saints’ and that there is “communion” among all the saints, both the saints on earth and those who have gone before us. Communion means communion. Catholics pray for those departed souls destined for final beatitude who await their final perfection just as they pray for us. If we are to follow Christ then we imitate him, both in this life and the next – this Christ who “intercedes for us,” (Rom 8:34). Prayers of the saints are definitely supported in Scripture. Since we can no longer have personal chats or write letters or send e-mails to the saints in heaven, prayer is our means of communion with them. James tells us that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Who is more righteous than those who have been received into the divine presence?

The issue here is not that people when they die are still alive (which scripture teaches) but can you communicate with them. There is no way to know the status of a person who has died. For example, a catholic does not know if the person who has died and praying to is in purgatory or hell. Can a person hear prayers directed to them from these places-states? If in purgatory or hell, how do you know they can get your prayers to God?

The scriptures do not teach any kind of “communication” with people who have died. What it does teach us is that we have access to the Father through the Lord Jesus.
This can be clearly seen for ex in Hebrews 4:14-16–14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

There is absolutely no need to implore the help of anyone mortal who has died. Christ is more than sufficent to meet all your needs.

This is not the right question. The question is, “what is the scriptural counsel concernng Church leadership that tends toward the greatest good.” The Catholic Church allows married men to be ordained in her Eastern Rites, and even the Latin rite allows married priests under certain particular dispensations. She has retained this feature of the ancient Church because it is clear that the Lord himself counseled it. From the earliest times, even married priests were expected to live in continence, as is canonized at the Council of Nicea – not as a new practice but in affirmation of the existing practice.

Of course it is there.

The question i asked must be addressed. The catholic church continues to disqualify on the basis of being married for a man to be a priest. By doing so it has violated the scriptures teaching in this. See I Timothy 3:1-10. No man or church has the authority to override the Scriptures.

 

[TOME]

Justasking4,
I think of your use of 1 Tim 3: 1-10 is condemn celebicy as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, shows the weakness of using a particular passage to form a whole theology.

If you look at the total of Paul’s writings he never condemns or put limits on the practice of the Christian Virtues amoung which is the virtue of service. Service, motivated by love 1 Cor 13), can superceed normal activities. Paul showed this through his own of life of celibacy so that he could live totally in the service of the Church and her mission of evangelization. So, I think it is inaccurate to say there is no scriptural bases for the the Roman Catholic Church to practice and demand celibacy of its Bishops and Priest if this is understood in light that the RCC has determined this is the better way for its clergy to serve the mission of the Church.

And there is plenty of scripture to form the basis that the Church has this right. We find in Acts, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Church determing and regulating the behavior of its members. In the pastoral letters of Paul to Titus and Timothy we again seeing the Church, through Paul, regulating what is expected of its clergy and in studying these letters and comparing them with other letters of the NT and Acts we find a development of the role of Bishops (Overseers) Presbyters and Deacons. This development has always been understood by the Church to have been guided by the work of the Holy Spirit, Who continues to guide the Church.

In Matthew 28: 16 - 20, we find Christ commissioning the “Twelve” and through the “Twelve” the Church to evangelize and baptize the all nations. In carring out this commission the Church has been guided, in a human sense, by the teachings of the Twelve (and Paul) which the Catholic Church has called the Apostolic or Sacred Tradition. This Tradition, historically, has been lived out through the two great tradition (Rites) of the East (Greek speaking Churchs) and the West (Latin speaking Churchs). It has been developed, in the West, the Church’s understanding that the best way to fulfill its obligation to evangelize all nations is through a celibate clergy as its norm. The Eastern Rite has saw differently. Is one right and the other wrong? I don’t think so, it is just this is how each has come to believe that this is the best way for them to live this life of Service and fulfill its mission.

Now my understanding of the role of Christian Service in regards to the question of celibacy in the West my be wrong, however, I would be interested in how there is no scriptural basis for celibacy in light of the vocation of Christian Service?

 

[George_Craft]

Can someone give me an offical list of what exactly these sacred traditions were for the first 500 years after the apostles died?

Hi justasking4:

Instead of posting the entire writing, I’ll give a site for an English translation of the Didache’, which is translated “Teachings of the 12 Apostles”. It was written sometime between 50-120 AD. and is considered the oldest surviving piece of non-canonical literature. It was considered the handbook for early Christians.

reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

I don;t particularly like the rest of the site, they’re very secular and cover all religions, but it gave an easy to read translation of this document.

Hope this answers your question.

With love,
George

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4,

I think of your use of 1 Tim 3: 1-10 is condemn celebicy as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, shows the weakness of using a particular passage to form a whole theology.

What the catholic church has done is to nullify the scriptures by mandating celibacy as a requirement for being a priest. Its not that the celibacy per se is wrong, but that the catholic has mandated it as a requirement in violation of the scriptures.

 

[VociMike]

Since all Sacred Tradition is backed up by Sacred Scripture, couldn’t Sacred Tradition be better described in today’s time period as the Authoritative Interpretation of Sacred Scripture?

That would imply a primacy of Scripture over Tradition which simply is not the case.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The question i asked must be addressed. The catholic church continues to disqualify on the basis of being married for a man to be a priest. By doing so it has violated the scriptures teaching in this. See I Timothy 3:1-10. No man or church has the authority to override the Scriptures.

Context and teaching Authority.

Your question seems to show neither. The new testament had not been complied when 1 Timothy was written. This passage speaks of the old testament not the new. The old testament bible was the only “scripture” that existed at the time.

Question answered.

This passage is true enough as understood in context.