T
trumpet152
Guest
I know scipture is inspired, but what about sacred Tradition?
- Status
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Because sacred Tradition is not a “recorded” or “material” factor, it can’t be inspired, per se (some of Tradition comes from recorded, or written, sources, but these are not inspired). Tradition is largely an interpretive factor.
For instance, Scripture tells us that we must be baptised. Tradition tells us that this can be through immersion, sprinkling, or pouring.
Scripture tells us that we must confess our sins. Tradition tells us that this must be to a priest.
For that reason, “inspired” is the wrong word, but not the wrong idea. Tradition comes from the holy Spirit, but rather than be inspired, it is “guided”.
For instance, Scripture tells us that we must be baptised. Tradition tells us that this can be through immersion, sprinkling, or pouring.
Scripture tells us that we must confess our sins. Tradition tells us that this must be to a priest.
For that reason, “inspired” is the wrong word, but not the wrong idea. Tradition comes from the holy Spirit, but rather than be inspired, it is “guided”.
D
DeFide
Guest
They both flow from the same divine well-spring, as stated in the Catechism. Typically, “inspiration” is used in relation to Sacred Scripture, which is a part of Sacred Tradition, but notice the similar aspects:
From Glossary of the Catechism:
**BIBLICAL INSPIRATION: **The gift of the Holy Spirit which assisted a human author to write a biblical book so that it has God as its author and teaches faithfully, without error, the saving truth that God has willed to be consigned to us (105).
**TRADITION: **The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83).
In depth, from the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
D
dcdurel
Guest
The** inspired** word of God refers only to scripture, because the Church uses the word inspired, to refer to what God wrote through men.
Therefore the Gospel that Jesus taught and preached was NOT inspired, because He didn’t write it.
Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to teach the apostles “all things.” This word of God that the Holy Spirit taught to the apostles was NOT inspired, even though it is the exact word of God Himself.
So the word of God, the Gospel, that the apostles learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit was NOT inspired, even though it is the pure word of God without error. It was not inspired, because by definition God did not write it through men.
From this we learn that what is inspired is only a part of the word of God.
Not only that, but Jesus taught the apostles everything, either directly or through the Holy Spirit He sent:
“…because I have made known to you all
that I have heard from my Father” (Jn 15,15)
Thus the whole Gospel was taught to the apostles, this Gospel was not inspired, because Jesus did not write it.
Since it was the word of God, and since it was not written, it is called Sacred Tradition.
Thus the entire Gospel “all that I have heard from my Father” is handed down in Sacred Tradition. This Gospel is the source of “all saving truth and moral discipline” as the CCH says.
And the apostles taught this entire Gospel to their successors, and it has been handed down today to each generation total and complete.
Later on, after the apostles began to preach and teach
this Gospel, the Holy Spirit inspired some apostles and apostolic men to write narratives of the life of Jesus, which we know as the
Gospels.
These contain only “certain elements” of the Gospel that was handed down in Tradition. Thus the inspired Gospels do NOTcontain the whole Gospel, and the teachings they do contain are not explicit. This is why Protestants can’t agree on any teaching.
Thus the entire Gospel is found only in Sacred Tradition.
How do we know the content of this Gospel? Even an athiest can know it by learning what the early Christians, the Church fathers wrote. From reading their writings, it is obvious that the Gospel they learned from the apostles was the Catholic Faith.
In other words, when the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, they simply proclaimed the Catholic Faith. This Catholic Faith is the pure word of God without error. Thus basic Catechisms present this Gospel, this word of God handed down in Tradition. The Church says catechisms present the “living Tradition”
So if we want to know what the apostles taught and preached, it is simply the entire Catholic Faith. So the Roman Catechism and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are innerrant in their teachings because these teachings ARE the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, in the form of Sacred Tradition.
As we grown in our understanding of the word of God, (developement of doctrine) this word of God becomes part of Sacred Tradition.
Most of this is taken from the Catechism and the General
Directory for Catechesis, which is approved by the Pope,
thus it’s teachings are inerrant.
Therefore the Gospel that Jesus taught and preached was NOT inspired, because He didn’t write it.
Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to teach the apostles “all things.” This word of God that the Holy Spirit taught to the apostles was NOT inspired, even though it is the exact word of God Himself.
So the word of God, the Gospel, that the apostles learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit was NOT inspired, even though it is the pure word of God without error. It was not inspired, because by definition God did not write it through men.
From this we learn that what is inspired is only a part of the word of God.
Not only that, but Jesus taught the apostles everything, either directly or through the Holy Spirit He sent:
“…because I have made known to you all
that I have heard from my Father” (Jn 15,15)
Thus the whole Gospel was taught to the apostles, this Gospel was not inspired, because Jesus did not write it.
Since it was the word of God, and since it was not written, it is called Sacred Tradition.
Thus the entire Gospel “all that I have heard from my Father” is handed down in Sacred Tradition. This Gospel is the source of “all saving truth and moral discipline” as the CCH says.
And the apostles taught this entire Gospel to their successors, and it has been handed down today to each generation total and complete.
Later on, after the apostles began to preach and teach
this Gospel, the Holy Spirit inspired some apostles and apostolic men to write narratives of the life of Jesus, which we know as the
Gospels.
These contain only “certain elements” of the Gospel that was handed down in Tradition. Thus the inspired Gospels do NOTcontain the whole Gospel, and the teachings they do contain are not explicit. This is why Protestants can’t agree on any teaching.
Thus the entire Gospel is found only in Sacred Tradition.
How do we know the content of this Gospel? Even an athiest can know it by learning what the early Christians, the Church fathers wrote. From reading their writings, it is obvious that the Gospel they learned from the apostles was the Catholic Faith.
In other words, when the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, they simply proclaimed the Catholic Faith. This Catholic Faith is the pure word of God without error. Thus basic Catechisms present this Gospel, this word of God handed down in Tradition. The Church says catechisms present the “living Tradition”
So if we want to know what the apostles taught and preached, it is simply the entire Catholic Faith. So the Roman Catechism and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are innerrant in their teachings because these teachings ARE the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, in the form of Sacred Tradition.
As we grown in our understanding of the word of God, (developement of doctrine) this word of God becomes part of Sacred Tradition.
Most of this is taken from the Catechism and the General
Directory for Catechesis, which is approved by the Pope,
thus it’s teachings are inerrant.
D
DNS
Guest
D
dcdurel
Guest
I love Jimmy Akin, but I believe he has several errors in there.
D
dcdurel
Guest
These are a few errors by James Akin.
He wrote: “The fact that Apostolic Tradition is a second way in which God’s teachings are expressed is also the answer to the question, “Why trust Apostolic Tradition if it isn’t inspired?” Because things don’t need to be inspired to be trustworthy, they just need to be true. Truth is necessary for trust, not inspiration.”
The real reason why we trust Apostolic Tradition is because it IS the word of God.
Dei Verbum says:
" while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known."
Notice that sacred tradition takes “the word of God” and hands it on “in its full purity”.
Sacred tradition IS the word of God. That is why we trust sacred tradition.
Then he wrote:
" Apostolic Scripture does have primacy over Apostolic Tradition (and the Church as well; see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11"
No it doesn’t. The Church teaches this no where at all. It is a common belief that even some orthodox scholars believe but it is taught no where in Church documents, nor is it implied anywhere.
After all, the Church does say that the Catechisms “proclaim the Gospel”, or “present the Gospel”, but no where do the scripture claim to present even a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Yet the Church teaches the Gospel that the apostles preached (sacred tradition) is the " source of all saving truth and moral teaching"
No where does the Church teach that scripture is " source of all saving truth and moral teaching."
Thus it would seem that sacred tradition would be primary, but, I am not about to teach something the Church doesn’t teach.
Since they are both the word of God they are both equal according to the next part of Dei Verbum
“The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles.”
Here the Church teaches that both scripture and sacred tradition are the supreme rule of faith.
Almost all errors in scripture, tradition and Church teachings stem from a misunderstanding of the word “Gospel”
Since the Church teaches the Gospel is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching", it is extremely important that we know exactly what the content of this Gospel is. Unfortunately the ONLY Catholics in the world who get this answer right is the Popes. I had no idea what the Gospel was until about a year ago when I gave into Jesus and gave up on men and I only studied, in the adoration chapel, what the Popes wrote or approved, . It was from Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, the General Directory for Catechesis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the present Pope that I realized I had never in my life been taught what the Gospel was. And no one seems to understand them.
He wrote: “The fact that Apostolic Tradition is a second way in which God’s teachings are expressed is also the answer to the question, “Why trust Apostolic Tradition if it isn’t inspired?” Because things don’t need to be inspired to be trustworthy, they just need to be true. Truth is necessary for trust, not inspiration.”
The real reason why we trust Apostolic Tradition is because it IS the word of God.
Dei Verbum says:
" while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known."
Notice that sacred tradition takes “the word of God” and hands it on “in its full purity”.
Sacred tradition IS the word of God. That is why we trust sacred tradition.
Then he wrote:
" Apostolic Scripture does have primacy over Apostolic Tradition (and the Church as well; see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11"
No it doesn’t. The Church teaches this no where at all. It is a common belief that even some orthodox scholars believe but it is taught no where in Church documents, nor is it implied anywhere.
After all, the Church does say that the Catechisms “proclaim the Gospel”, or “present the Gospel”, but no where do the scripture claim to present even a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Yet the Church teaches the Gospel that the apostles preached (sacred tradition) is the " source of all saving truth and moral teaching"
No where does the Church teach that scripture is " source of all saving truth and moral teaching."
Thus it would seem that sacred tradition would be primary, but, I am not about to teach something the Church doesn’t teach.
Since they are both the word of God they are both equal according to the next part of Dei Verbum
“The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles.”
Here the Church teaches that both scripture and sacred tradition are the supreme rule of faith.
Almost all errors in scripture, tradition and Church teachings stem from a misunderstanding of the word “Gospel”
Since the Church teaches the Gospel is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching", it is extremely important that we know exactly what the content of this Gospel is. Unfortunately the ONLY Catholics in the world who get this answer right is the Popes. I had no idea what the Gospel was until about a year ago when I gave into Jesus and gave up on men and I only studied, in the adoration chapel, what the Popes wrote or approved, . It was from Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, the General Directory for Catechesis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the present Pope that I realized I had never in my life been taught what the Gospel was. And no one seems to understand them.
T
trumpet152
Guest
I know that the Bible is inspired, but what about Sacred Tradition? I have no doubt that both are true, but are they both “God-breathed”?
D
DeFide
Guest
You already asked this question.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=100746&highlight=inspired
What gives?
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
How can God say something as truth which is not inspired?
W
Wolseley
Guest
None other than the Apostle Paul warned about the importance of Tradition, or the oral teachings of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6); and he equated Tradition with written Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Council of Trent re-confirmed the authority and equality of Apostolic Tradition with Scripture in the face of the Reformation, which denied the inspiration and authority of Tradition—along with every doctrine it contained which the Reformers disagreed with. The view of the early Christians, however, is borne out in texts such as these:
“What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (Irenaeus of Lyons; Against Heresies, 3,4,1; 180 AD).
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and Apostolic Tradition.” (Origen; Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Preface, 2; 220 AD).
“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force.” (Basil the Great; The Holy Spirit, 27,66; 375 AD).
“It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.” (Epiphanius of Salamis; Against All Heresies, 61,6; 374 AD).
“What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (Irenaeus of Lyons; Against Heresies, 3,4,1; 180 AD).
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and Apostolic Tradition.” (Origen; Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Preface, 2; 220 AD).
“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force.” (Basil the Great; The Holy Spirit, 27,66; 375 AD).
“It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.” (Epiphanius of Salamis; Against All Heresies, 61,6; 374 AD).
D
Donald45
Guest
The Greek term theopneustos, commonly translated as “inspired by God” in English, appears in 2 Timothy 3:16 and refers there to the Old Testament writings. The term is never applied to any individual biblical document in particular, nor to the sacred oral Tradition which had existed for decades before a single word of the New Testament was written. Therefore, to place too much significance on the word theopneustos (as Protestantism typically does) is to go beyond that which the NT itself gives to the term.
Now, the Protestant may argue that while Scripture is called “God-breathed,” the Bible never uses that term to describe Tradition. Yet, this may say more than the Protestant wishes, for this reason: No particular book of the Bible is ever referred to as “God-breathed.” For example, the Gospel of Luke never refers to itself as theopneustos—is Luke therefore not to be considered inspired? Likewise, the letters of Peter nowhere claim to be “God-breathed”; are they then not from God? In fact, no particular book or letter of the New Testament is anywhere referred to as theopneustos. So if, as the Protestant wants to argue, only that revelation which is specifically designated in Scripture as “God-breathed” may be considered divinely authoritative, then the entire New Testament must be rejected as a God-given revelation.
The term theopneustos in 2 Timothy should be seen for what it is, a general statement of the nature of the Old Testament revelation, and not forced into service as a defining label for all divine revelation.
God bless,
Don
Now, the Protestant may argue that while Scripture is called “God-breathed,” the Bible never uses that term to describe Tradition. Yet, this may say more than the Protestant wishes, for this reason: No particular book of the Bible is ever referred to as “God-breathed.” For example, the Gospel of Luke never refers to itself as theopneustos—is Luke therefore not to be considered inspired? Likewise, the letters of Peter nowhere claim to be “God-breathed”; are they then not from God? In fact, no particular book or letter of the New Testament is anywhere referred to as theopneustos. So if, as the Protestant wants to argue, only that revelation which is specifically designated in Scripture as “God-breathed” may be considered divinely authoritative, then the entire New Testament must be rejected as a God-given revelation.
The term theopneustos in 2 Timothy should be seen for what it is, a general statement of the nature of the Old Testament revelation, and not forced into service as a defining label for all divine revelation.
God bless,
Don
T
trumpet152
Guest
Wow. I completely forgot. Never saw the answers!
Ignore this thread!
I think I need more sleep… :yawn:
D
dcdurel
Guest
In summary, since Sacred Tradition has come to us from Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, through the apostles, then it is the inerrent Word of God. It can’t be changed because it is the Word of God. It is without error because it is the Word of God. It contains the entire Gospel, thus it is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline, as the Catechism says. The Catechisms contain this living Sacred Tradition. When we learn the Catechisms, we learn the basic Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
Scripture is not a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. It is basically salvation history. The apostles did not proclaim the Gospel by reading the four gospels. They proclaimed the Gospel by teaching the Trinity, the articles of the Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and prayer. There is no other way.
There is no book in the bible, no chapter in the bible that claims to have a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Thus, we cannot learn the Gospel by reading scripture. Protestants have tried for 500 years and it has been a miserable failure. None of them, for example, understand the correct teachings on the Eucharist, except for some Anglicans, and that is only because they have held fast to the Sacred Tradition handed down.
Code:
Inspired refers to the Word of God that the Holy Spirit moved men to write. Thus, the four Gospels, which are a narrative of the life of Jesus, as the General Directory for Catechesis calls them, are inspired, because they were written by God. What God writes, we call inspired, or Tradition. What God teaches directly we call Sacred Tradition.There is no book in the bible, no chapter in the bible that claims to have a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Thus, we cannot learn the Gospel by reading scripture. Protestants have tried for 500 years and it has been a miserable failure. None of them, for example, understand the correct teachings on the Eucharist, except for some Anglicans, and that is only because they have held fast to the Sacred Tradition handed down.
Is the inspired Word of God, scripture, more important that the taught Word of God, Tradition? Of course not. The very Gospel that Jesus preached is the pure Word of God. Yet it is not inspired, because He didn't write it. It is still the Word of God, without error, which we must live by. The notion that only what is inspired is the Word of God comes from Protestantism. Protestants don't know the content of the Gospel, because they don't have the Word of God handed down in Sacred Tradition. Thus, they are forced to equate what is (name removed by moderator)ired alone (scripture) with the Word of God. Unfortunately, scripture does not teach the Gospel. Thus, they come up with thousands of different Gospels based on their understanding of scripture, which is basically salvation history. No one can learn the Gospel by studing only what is inspired. We can learn salvation history that way, but not the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. We can only learn the Gospel, by being taught the Gospel that was handed down in Sacred Tradition, through the Church.
B
bones_IV
Guest
Fact: all sacred tradition is doctrinal
Fact: Doctrines are a part of divine Revelation and can be found in Sacred Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. Not all revelation is written down. Not all revelation is found in the Sacred Scriptures, it also found in Sacred Tradition. The Church has never lost Tradition (Apostolic or Sacred Tradition), since it is protected by the Charism of Peter. I can tell you that I have more respect for fundamentalists than I do for Catholic modernists.
The magisterium can always fall back on Sacred Tradition as a divine source of their teaching.
T
thistle
Guest
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
CCC 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
CCC 81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [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."43
CCC 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
One common source. . .
CCC 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
CCC 81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [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."43
CCC 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
B
bones_IV
Guest
Canon 749 1. In virtue of his office the Roman Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as Chief Sheperd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of stregthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the Universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, despersed throughout the world but maintaing the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
- No doctrine is to be understood infallibly unless this is manifestly demonstrated.
- Status