Is Sacred Tradition Authoritative Interpretation?

[TOME]

justasking4,
Yes 1 Tim does give a detailed description of Church leadership, but it is not as final as you may think. 1 Tim shows that there was an ongoing development in the Church’s understanding of Church leadership. However, there are some things to consider. Church leadership as found in the first chapters of Acts, prior to Paul’s missionary activity is different than that listed by Paul in both Ephesians and Corithians and even that of the Church of the letter of Titus. In the pastoral letters there is ambiguity as to the roles of Overseers, presbyters and deacons. I bring this up only to point out that the roles and qualifictions of the ordained ministry was still in a stage of development at the time of Paul.

Also, specifically in 1 Tm 3: 1 - 10, if you read it Paul does not say that not having a wife is a disqualification of Bishops (Overseers) rather he can only be married once and further on Paul talks about if a bishop is married how he should have run his house. If Paul insisted that marriage was a requirement for Church leadership he would have been excluding himself. In fact in 1 Cor. Paul proclaims his celibacy was a choice he made to forsake the right to marry, amoung other rights, for the sake of the gospel. Also, if 1 Tm 3 makes marriage a mandatory state for those in Church leadership, how can this be reconciled with Luke 14: 25 - 27 or Mark 10: 17 - 22? And doesn’t this show that the Church is not nullifying scriptures but is actually following more closely the word’s of Christ?

Also, as was pointed out in another post, the only scripture the Church had at this time was the OT. But we find in Paul’s writings the Church interpeted the OT in light of Chirst’s teachings and the Paschal Mystery of Christ passion, death and resurrection and it was the Apostolic teaching that guided the Church. The Church also believed then as it does now that Christ had given her the Holy Spirit to guide her. These teaching, which preceeded the NT, continued through what we call Apostolic or Sacred Tradition, which continues to guide the Church. So rooted in the belief that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church and that the Church continues the mandate given her by Christ, exercising the authority given her by Christ through the Apostles, the Church has the right to exercise her authority as to how best to carry out her mission. In the Easten Rite of the Apostolic Tradition, celibacy is not mandated, however, in the Western Rite it is. Again I do not see how this is nullifying scripture, given the Church has the right and authority to interpet its own scripture.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

No man or church has the authority to override the Scriptures.

Justasking4:

Hello again, fair friend. What is the authority for this assertion? I can’t find it in Scripture (or would that be tautological?) Every book would have to have the same statement as to finality and authority, AND, there would have to be written provisions showing in cases of conflicting statements which one has precedence over the other.

Prayer is the perfect example. Jesus told us to pray in secret. Are we sinning if we pray in public? When asked how to pray, Jesus gave us the Our Father, are we sinning if we pray to God in any other way?

The Our Father is a **liturgical **prayer since it comes from the Bible, and it’s always been the same as it is now. The Ave Maria (I prefer the Latin: it reminds me of the music!) is a devotional prayer; it evovled like the Rosary itself, from the pious practices of monks, nuns and lay Christians.

As to Purgatory (a concept you have trouble coming to grips with). At judgment, St Paul wrote, “the fire shall try every man’s work…If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” (1 Cor 3:13-15).

Obviously, this fire isn’t in Hell, because you can’t be saved through hellfire, and there’s no fire in Heaven.

To clarify matters further, Christ Himself promised that there was punishment that exacted what was due but wasn’t endless: “Amen, I say to you, you shall not go out of there until you repay the last farthing” (Mt 5:26, see also Mt 18:23-25).

Jesus also pointed out that there’s some place for forgiveness of sins after death, not just acceptance into Heaven or condemnation (MT 12:32).

So Purgatory is for sins that don’t deserve absolute punishment: little venial sins, done by people whose hearts are in the right places.

The souls of Purgatory suffer, but they have an advantage over us because they know that they are saved. And they are still united with us and perfectly well able to pray for us and benefit from our prayers (2 Macc 12:39-46). Research any of the early Church Fathers and you will read that they all commend the practice of praying for the repose of the dead.

Those in Heaven are aware of us and of those in Purgatory, or even Hell (Luke 16:19-31).

After all, and this is vitally important: if bodily death separates us, then Christianity as a whole doesn’t make any sense.

Pax Christi

 

[jpusateri]

We, all of us, who are Christians are baptized into the Body of Christ. We are saints. They who have fallen asleep are also saints. We are IN Christ.

Praying to a saint IS praying to Jesus Christ, because the saint is part of Him.

So it is the same to say that we are praying to Jesus when we pray to the saints. If it makes you feel better to say you pray to Jesus, you are correct, yet those who pray to the saints have a more full understanding.

How does the saint hear me? Does God funnel all the requests? Is there a big clearinghouse of messages? Perhaps a switchboard or a router? It doesn’t matter. I don’t have to know the details. I just know it happens.

 

[mercygate]

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?

We do know the status of certain persons who have died. By a rigorous discernment process, which includes clear-cut supernatural evidence, the Church has discerned that certain people are definitely in Heaven. We call them Saints with a capital “S” to distinguish them from the rest of us, and from the multitudes of the departed, whose fate is less certain.

Souls in Purgatory are among the blessed. We call these people “Holy.” They are destined for Heaven.

You are correct, we cannot ascertain for certain whether someone is in Purgatory or Hell. We can make some pretty astute guesses, though, and it is via the hopeful confidence of those who seek the intercession of people like Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa that the case is built by which the Church is able to declare de fide that a person has reached the goal of beatitude.

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.

And the souls of the Blessed are with Christ and in Him. As Paul says, they have “the mind of Christ.” We do not believe that they are blind and deaf but that they partake of Christ’s perfect Charity, by which they respond to our petitions and join them to his perfect intercession before the Father’s throne.

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.

Of course Christ is sufficient to meet all of our needs. No Catholic would argue that. But we are not invidious.

Around the throne of grace is "a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands . . . " I.e., the Saints. Are they indifferent to what Jesus loves? Do they not also love and care for us, perfected as they are in His love? They are praising God. God hears them. What greater praise than love? If they are perfected in love, can we doubt that they hear us?

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.

Precisely speaking, the Catholic Church does not disqualify married men from becoming priests. It does disqualify priests from marrying. It’s subtle but there IS a difference.

Clerical celibacy in no way overrides the Scriptures. You do acknowledge, don’t you, that the imitation of Christ and the counsel of Paul demonstrate a preference for celibacy? The Catholic discipline upholds the clear New Testament preference. There can be no honest denial of that.

You also seem to have missed the point mentioned earlier that the Catholic Church does ordain married men to priesthood in the Eastern Rites and, under special circumstances, in the Roman Rite also. I know married Episcopal minister converts who have been ordained as Catholic priests.

The Orthodox do not allow an ordained man to marry, nor do they allow a married Priest to be consecrated Bishop. This is not a “Roman” thing.

Coming from a tradition whose ministry does not participate in Apostolic Succession and that has overthrown the teaching of the Apostles and the early Church on Priesthood, one might find the idea of clerical celibacy dismissible. The concept derives from passages of Scripture that are almost culpably overlooked by much of the Protestant world.

Catholics can become testy when challenged by people who say that the Church “violates the teachings of scripture” (usually based on I Tim 3 – which addresses only a fraction of the issue and by no means excludes celibacy as the preferred condition). The weight of Scripture is clearly on the side of continence.

 

[mercygate]

Isn’t it true that the church actually did have married clergy in the early centuries and this "development came about much later? No. That does not accurately state the case. Married and celibate clergy stood side-by-side in the New Testament and in the early Church. The preference, both in the New Testament and in the early Church was for celibacy. When married men were set apart as Presbyters (priests), they were expected to forego their conjugal privileges. See Christian Cochini’s excellent book, *The Apostolic Origin of Priestly Celibacy. *

The “development” is the widespread acceptance of marriage for priests and – as Protestants often do today – the exclusion of single men from ministry because of a narrow reading of one section of Scripture to the prejudice of the whole.

Whenever you have an re-affirmation of celibacy in canon law, it is not to introduce a novelty but to address creeping abuses.

 

[Protestant101]

We do know the status of certain persons who have died. By a rigorous discernment process, which includes clear-cut supernatural evidence, the Church has discerned that certain people are definitely in Heaven. We call them Saints with a capital “S” to distinguish them from the rest of us, and from the multitudes of the departed, whose fate is less certain.

May I ask please what is meant by

clear-cut supernatural evidence?

And how would same be verified by Scripture. I mean, the Bible does tell us that Satan himself will appear as an angel of light, (2 Corinthians 11:14), so Christians need to have the scriptural means to identify good supernatural, vs. the other.

Also; in terms of calling the praying to dead Saints a “Tradition;” it cannot be considered as Biblical Tradition. The Bible tells us that “the dead know not anything;” (Eccl.9:5), and for the reason just stated above, we need to be very careful what we call “supernatural” as in from God, or sanctioned by God.

If “Tradition” does not contradict Scripture, then it is a simple matter to verify Tradition by what the Bible reveals about it to us. Both OT & NT are very good for this.

 

[mercygate]

May I ask please what is meant by

And how would same be verified by Scripture.

“clear-cut supernatural evidence” usually refers to a miraculous occurrence in response to the intercessession of the purported saint. Medical miracles are the most clear-cut. The Church does not accept “ordinary” miracles, such as healings from serious diseases like cancer, which might occur naturally, even if unlikely. It requires verified, dramatic, “impossible” cures with evidence like before-and-after x-rays of vanished tumors, or a person whose retinas are destroyed, yet is now able to see.

I personally know the world-renowned cardiologist who verified one of the miracles brought forward in the cause of St. Faustina Kowalska. The highest medical standards are applied to verify that an extraordinary healing has occurred. Often, non-Catholics are consulted just to preclude bias.

the Bible does tell us that Satan himself will appear as an angel of light, (2 Corinthians 11:14), so Christians need to have the scriptural means to identify good supernatural, vs. the other.

The kind of thing used in this sort discernment usually doesn’t touch upon apparitions and such. It’s pure, raw science.

Also; in terms of calling the praying to dead Saints a “Tradition;” it cannot be considered as Biblical Tradition. The Bible tells us that “the dead know not anything;” (Eccl.9:5), and for the reason just stated above, we need to be very careful what we call “supernatural” as in from God, or sanctioned by God.

The Church IS careful. It is also careful in how it reads Scripture. It does not quote a single verse against the full weight of the rest of Scripture.

If “Tradition” does not contradict Scripture, then it is a simple matter to verify Tradition by what the Bible reveals about it to us. Both OT & NT are very good for this.

Huh? But Scripture itself can be understood only when embedded in its natural environment: Tradition. It is not a freestanding proposition with an independent life. It lives in the Church that gave birth to it.

 

[Philthy]

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.

I disagree - Paul’s advice to the unmarried is to remain unmarried. That would include everyone born after he wrote 1Corinthians. This is totally off-topic.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Protestant 101 (is that the Highway near my house?)

My sister-in-law (a 7th day Adventist) has never given me an answer to either of these questions, maybe you can enlighten some of us Catholics.

Q: Why do Adventists take some ancient diet and ritual laws from the OT but not follow all of them?

Q: In view of your church’s official ban on pork and shellfish, how do you reconcile Jesus’s words in Matthew:

“Hear and understand. It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person, but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.” (15:10-11)

AND (the biggie to me since I love my California wine)

Q: Why do Adventists say the miracle at Cana was turning water into “grape juice” when the original Greek in ALL extant manuscripts uses the Greek word for ‘wine,’ and that the concept and word for ‘grape juice’ (as a beverage) did not exist until the late 19th century?

Thanks, I hope its not too much work for you.

Pax Christi,

Jonathan

 

[junvir]

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.

 

[junvir]

On the other hand, careful examination of history would tell us that many of the traditions (doctrines) of the church were the result of discussions among church leaders (the cardinals) like the Council of Nicea in ad 325 decreed by Emperor Constantine a pagan turned Christian… many of these doctrines were not handed down from the apostles but the result of lengthy discussions among church leaders… including their prejudices and personal beliefs… you see, democracy was already operative during those times because the cardinals even cast their votes after lengthy discussions of certain doctrine.

 

[mercygate]

On the other hand, careful examination of history would tell us that many of the traditions (doctrines) of the church were the result of discussions among church leaders (the cardinals) like the Council of Nicea in ad 325 decreed by Emperor Constantine a pagan turned Christian… many of these doctrines were not handed down from the apostles but the result of lengthy discussions among church leaders… including their prejudices and personal beliefs… you see, democracy was already operative during those times because the cardinals even cast their votes after lengthy discussions of certain doctrine.

Help me understand you here. Are you saying that ‘discussions among Church leaders’ convened in authoritative ecumenical councils are essentially democratic operations? Since the players are all bishops, it’s not exactly a street poll.

 

[junvir]

What do we call a decision made by voting after discussing the subject? Is not it a form of democratic practice? And what of the council of Nicea in ad 325 decreed by Emperor Constantine, a pagan turned Christian, who, according to history wanted to stay in power? Are the doctrines voted and adopted by the Church sacred traditions…? when these doctrines were not practiced by the apostles but rather adopted in a synod? By force of reason alone, we can say that this is not sacred tradition because the apostles have nothing to do with it.

 

[mercygate]

What do we call a decision made by voting after discussing the subject? Is not it a form of democratic practice?

We see in the the Acts of the Apostles that people came to the decision of who should replace Judas after discussion, and then casting lots. So the model of the Apostles was to engage is discussion for decision making.

And what of the council of Nicea in ad 325 decreed by Emperor Constantine, a pagan turned Christian, who, according to history wanted to stay in power?

It is highly misleading to say that Constantine was a pagan. His mother wras a Christian, and, though he had not fully assented to the faith, he was hardly a raw pagan.

Are the doctrines voted and adopted by the Church sacred traditions…? when these doctrines were not practiced by the apostles but rather adopted in a synod?

Ecumenical Councils have the authority of Apostolic Tradition because all those entrusted with the decision-making are bishops in Apostolic Succession. Would Jesus empower the 12 with his authority but not provide a means for passing that authority along? We see that “passing along” in Matthew, Luke and John, as well as in the Great Commission.

By force of reason alone, we can say that this is not sacred tradition because the apostles have nothing to do with it.

In the Catholic view, we do understand (not without the force of reasond) that this has everything to do with the Apostles because of the trust given to the Church through Apostolic succession.

I find it perplexing when a Bible-only Christian accepts the doctrines of the first four ecumenical councils, which pin their authority on Apostolic Succession in exercising the power of Sacred Tradition, yet reject the concept of Apostolic Succession.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

I’m not sure such a list exists; however, you can read what the Early Church Fathers wrote during that period.

The Fathers are divided into three categories:

1. Apostolic Fathers (so-called because they knew the Apostles personally)
2. Pre-Nicene Fathers (this would take you to the period you mentioned roughly)
3. Post-Nicene Fathers (ending aroung the year A.D. 800 or so)