Is sacred tradition more holy than scripture?

[Erikaspirit16]

I agree with all of this; however, your religion seems confusing to me in light of this. “Former Catholic investigating Islam”? You seem to have soundly refuted Islam here.

“Investigating Islam.” Not a Muslim. Investigating. There’s a big difference!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

To go back to Hatansas’s two examples, original sin and the Trinity, Catholics would say that both of these are in Scripture, in all sorts of places in all sorts of ways. For example John 14:7 “… If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. …” And yet in other passages, Jesus makes it clear that Jesus and the Father are somehow separate. So yes, we have to use logic: if Jesus is somehow separate from the Father and in some way the same…there we have the Trinity (or at least two persons of it). And original sin goes back to Genesis and the Garden of Eden. It’s not just the sin of Adam and Eve. The sin has consequences for all their descendants (us). The same with Cain. It’s not just Cain’s sin, the consequences follow his descendants. So that’s the concept of original sin. Again, it’s the Church’s interpretation that matters. And note that the Church does NOT put out official commentaries interpreting every single verse. It only interprets verses that impact major doctrines.

 

[Micosil]

“Investigating Islam.” Not a Muslim. Investigating. There’s a big difference!

Ah, I see. I was under the impression you were a former Catholic who left the faith to investigate Islam as a possible new faith.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Ah, I see. I was under the impression you were a former Catholic who left the faith to investigate Islam as a possible new faith.

I am. But the key word is “possible new faith.” I find good things in Catholicism and Islam. I find bad things in both, too.

 

[prodromos]

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, Scripture is the pinnacle of Holy Tradition. The two are inseparable.

 

[hasantas]

The source of Sacred Tradition is Apostolic. It is understood that public revelation ended not when Jesus ascended into heaven, but when the last Apostle (who most scholars think is John) died.

That Sacred Tradition (oral) part of the Deposit of Faith is due in part to the Jewish religious culture. It was the norm for Jewish children to memorize prayers and Scripture by heart till they got it down perfectly.

Did apostles get revelation? What kinds of revelation those were?

 

[hasantas]

I would have some problem with the assertion that the doctrines are not supported by the bible directly. The Bible may not have used the words “Holy Trinity” but it is clear on the doctrine if studied. Also the Church did not establish a “Holy Tradition” God did when he founded and commissioned His church to spread the Gospel. It is other man-founded religions that established their own traditions and try to interpret sacred scripture without it, They don’t realize that God Established a teaching Church, promised to be with it all days until the end of time and to send His Holy Spirit to be with it bringing guidance and truth.

I agree that Jesus ordered apostles to spread faith. The problem is that the doctrines were not exist as initially especially during apostles. Paul formed and involved in scripture and faith very much. Was Paul apostle of Jesus or was Paul taught by Holy Spirit? As much I know he was opposed!

And…

Is the accepting the divinity of Jesus at First Council of Nicaea Holy Tradition? Did Holy Spirit guide some people to find truth that god is three(trinity)? But there had been many discussions!

 

[hasantas]

Proving the Holy Trinity is a separate thread.

But I would say that if you read the NT as a totality you come to that realization. You don’t even need to read Paul’s work, just read the Gospels and book of Revelation and you come to that conclusion.

There is one catch, though, you cant read it with presuppositions. Which, of course, Muslims have them because their faith says we are wrong.

Then I will ask that question:

Let’s assume someone who never read and knew anything about doctrines. And let that someone to read Gospels. Will that someone draw conclusions somethings like doctrines?

 

[hasantas]

Out of topic. Why some Christians call themselves Catholic and recognise that to be a religion? I mean is Catholic another religion so someone write" religion:Catholic". Or “Catholic Faith”! Is that conclusion of Holy Tradition?

Is not Catholic a denomination?

 

[hasantas]

Written tradition and unwritten tradition are two parts of the same whole. One cannot exist without the other.

I call Sacred Tradition unwritten because this is the phrasing that the Council of Trent uses. The language is rather insightful, because it reveals something important about Sacred Tradition: much of it is unwritten, not because the Apostles didn’t bother with writing it down, but rather because Tradition is not entirely something that you can write down, even in principle.

In other words, tradition isn’t merely a kind of “stuff.” Blessed Cardinal Newman argues that a better analogy for tradition would be “idea,” “concept,” or even “insight.” Thomists sometimes follow this by arguing that Scripture is the material of Revelation, while Tradition is its form (the Holy Spirit through Christ/Apostles/Bishops is then the efficient cause).

Here is Mr. Mark Shea’s explanation: mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Unwritten tradition is called “custom”. Religion and faith are not so common and worthless to be part of custom. The essentials and fundamentials of faith should stand unto very authoritative principals. And for faith and religion the scripture could be authoritative in fundamentals…

 

[Micosil]

Did apostles get revelation? What kinds of revelation those were?

Of course, they were the ones who (for the most part) walked, ate, slept, with Christ, absorbing his teachings for a span of about three years. There’s exceptions, such as Paul, who had a vision of the risen Jesus (but note that he seemed to be have been received well by the other Apostles, so he wasn’t considered some sort of outsider).

 

[hasantas]

Of course, they were the ones who (for the most part) walked, ate, slept, with Christ, absorbing his teachings for a span of about three years. There’s exceptions, such as Paul, who had a vision of the risen Jesus (but note that he seemed to be have been received well by the other Apostles, so he wasn’t considered some sort of outsider).

Is there any indication which demonstrate that the doctrines were taught by apostles(except Paul!)?

 

[Micosil]

Is there any indication which demonstrate that the doctrines were taught by apostles(except Paul!)?

You have early documents such as the Didache which details some of the same material found in the New Testament; not to mention the writings of the Apostolic Fathers who seemed to have personally known the Apostles. What they wrote seems to match what the Gospels and the New Testament in general gets across.

 

[Micosil]

Unwritten tradition is called “custom”. Religion and faith are not so common and worthless to be part of custom. The essentials and fundamentials of faith should stand unto very authoritative principals. And for faith and religion the scripture could be authoritative in fundamentals…

You seem to misunderstand how the Jewish faith and culture worked, and perhaps still works in more orthodox circles. Children gathered around rabbis and would memorize Scripture and prayers till they got it down perfectly. This tradition wasn’t “written” either, but I don’t think you can downgrade it to a simple consequence of the culture; you need to understand that for a Jew of that time, faith was such an integral part of their culture that part of that shows as an ‘unwritten’ (oral) tradition.

 

[hasantas]

In my opinion, your post has completely missed the point of these beliefs. The Trinity and Original Sin are names for doctrines, much like “5-Point Calvinism” describes a particular interpretation of the Bible. The fact that the exact phrasing is not used in the Bible is irrelevant to their veracity, because the names themselves are just shorthand used for describing the position itself. (Similarly, just because the bible doesn’t use the exact phrasing used by philosophers to describe “free will” says nothing about whether it says humans have it or not.)

You have implied in later posts that the Trinity implies there are “three gods.” This is actually a serious Heresy to all Christian denominations – and is considered so serious that those few churches (namely the Mormons) who hold to said beliefs are considered no longer Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity is easily defined by seven bullet points, all of which were subscribed to by the early Christians and pretty clearly proclaimed in the Bible. If the bullet points are true, Trinitarian belief is true.

1. God is one.
2. God the Father is God.
3. God the Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father is not the Son.
6. The Son is not the Spirit.
7. The Spirit is not the Father.

As to why we believe the above points:

1. You already believe this as do all Monotheistic religions.
   2-4) History and the Bible are pretty clear on the fact that the earliest Christians proclaimed all three to be God and worshipped all of them as the same God. Jesus Himself makes so many claims to be God that the Jews up and executed Him for it.
   5-7) These follow from the fact that the three aspects are not shown as identical in all respects. They are pretty clearly carrying out different roles and, in some cases, are not even accessing all the information or power they have at their disposal (purposefully limiting themselves).

In conclusion, we believe in one God in three persons. None could exist without the other, because they are all the same being and to not have one would be to not have the others as well. Yes it is complicated, but no one should expect God to be simple for our convenience. He is what He is. If you want to know how this works, read a philosopher.

Tradition merely proclaims the obvious fact that all Christians have to believe in this because – unsurprisingly – it is rather important info! No council proclaimed any of points 1-7 on its own; all were taught clearly in the Bible and do not require any esoteric reading to get to (indeed, in my experience, there is usually a lot more twisting from Jehovah Witness and Mormons trying to get *out *of believing in it.) So whether Tradition stands above the Bible is in this case irrelevant. Tradition merely defined what doctrine Christians had to subscribe to before we kicked them out for heresy (because there *are *points where you can be wrong and still a Christian)-- it did not make up any part of the doctrine itself except the name. So the point is moot.

You can explain Trinity by Catechism(Holy Tradition) through mysterious and strained statements. I can bring many verses which directly prove that Jesus was merely human and prophet. The Trinity doctrine has many conflicts which make many Christians to have scanty faith. I think Christianity will be more powerful without that doctrines.

Do you not see conflict in writing!

God is one.
(That is nice)
But,
Father is God.
Son is God.
Holy Spirit is God.
(Three gods!)
And…
Father is not Son(But Son was God so Father should not be God)
Son is not Spirit(But Spirit was God so Son should not be God!)
Spirit is not Father(But Father was God so Spirit Should not be God!)

Ofcourse there are much more conflicts in meaning!

 

[Servant19]

You can explain Trinity by Catechism(Holy Tradition) through mysterious and strained statements. I can bring many verses which directly prove that Jesus was merely human and prophet. The Trinity doctrine has many conflicts which make many Christians to have scanty faith. I think Christianity will be more powerful without that doctrines.

Do you not see conflict in writing!

God is one.
(That is nice)
But,
Father is God.
Son is God.
Holy Spirit is God.
(Three gods!)
And…
Father is not Son(But Son was God so Father should not be God)
Son is not Spirit(But Spirit was God so Son should not be God!)
Spirit is not Father(But Father was God so Spirit Should not be God!)

Ofcourse there are much more conflicts in meaning!

Hi hasantas,

Do you believe that the Word of God brought the whole of Creation into being?

.

 

[hasantas]

No one seems to have mentioned the obvious, so allow me.

First epistles written by Paul: c. 50 AD
Gospel of Mark: c. 60 AD
Gospels of Matthew & Luke: c. 70-80 AD
Gospels of John: c. 90 AD

(this is rough, and I don’t want to quibble over a year or two. It doesn’t matter.)

Foundation of Catholic Church? At Pentecost–33 AD (and yes, we could quibble over that, too–was is really 30 AD, 31, etc. It doesn’t matter.)

The point is that the Church was in existence for roughly 17 years before the first epistle appeared. It was in existence for roughly 27 years before the first Gospel appeared.

…

The next step, esp. if you are explaining things to a Muslim, is to explain that Scripture holds the exact opposite position it holds in Islam. In Islam, you are dealing with an uncreated Qur’an (except if you are a Mu’tazila, etc.) which was gradually revealed to Muhammad over a period of time–20-25 years. So Muhammad has to justify his actions (fighting during Ramadan, having more than 4 wives, marrying the ex-wife of an adopted son, etc. etc.) by having a revelation to justify those things; a revelation that existed before time, but was revealed to men through Muhammad at a specific time. So for a Muslim, the Qur’an comes before (chronologically) everything, and thus the Qur’an must justify everything a Muslim believes. To a Christian, it’s the opposite: the Church came first, then the Scripture. The Church decided what Scriptures were authentic. The Church decided what the Scriptures meant, not vice versa.

…That Jesus rose–physically–from the dead. All Gospels agree on that. That Jesus showed himself–again, physically–to his disciples. All Gospels agree. The other stuff doesn’t matter. So there are four stories, each slightly different, but all agreeing on the main point of the story–Jesus rose from the dead.

It please me if you select Islam. But I prefer you to realise the false of doctrines and try to explain that. If you could do that then the name would be no important whether it is Islam or Christian. Islam do not reject Jesus and His faith and religion. Without doctrines the religion of Jesus is Islam. Islam is the improved form of Christianity (the last and most advanced religion of God.) So if you select Islam then there should be no need for Christianity or another religion. But if you choice Christianity then you should not reject Islam.

Ofcourse there are some hard issues in Islam too. You have some doubts about prophet Muhammad(Marriages, slaves, etc.) But those do not effect religion and faith and indeed there are very logical and valid explanations of those. Muhammad was/is most high moraly people on the world. If there should be some licentious deeds then all Muslims and Pagans would state those. The words of God(Qur’an is whole wisdom, truth, justice, logic, etc) are not unmoral or never are the words which Muhammad made up by Himself.
You have to reject Qur’an totally or accept. For instance to say Muhammad said such thing in Qur’an to justify His actions does not sound reasonably because that means you do not verify Qur’an is revelation. Qur’an is not such thing by which Muhammad would verify Himself. There are verses which warn Muhammad. If Qur’an had been made up by Muhammad there would not be such thing. And nobody had seen a lie from Muhammad so to claim that Muhammad had lied by saying Qur’an to be revelation is not valid or logical. Even His enemies could not say such thing! They rejected Muhammad because of other reasons.

 

[hasantas]

Hi hasantas,

Do you believe that the Word of God brought the whole of Creation into being?

.

Yes. God said be! And it happened.

If you mean Jesus! Yes Jesus was word of God. God said be! And Jesus was born without a father.

Word of God brought every thing into being is explained in Qur’an :

59-Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was. Al-Imran(3)

117-Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is. Al-Baqarah(2)

 

[Servant19]

Yes. God said be! And it happened.

If you mean Jesus! Yes Jesus was word of God. God said be! And Jesus was born without a father.

Word of God brought every thing into being is explained in Qur’an :

59-Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was. Al-Imran(3)

117-Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is. Al-Baqarah(2)

So if Jesus was the Word of God, He might be said to be the letters B and E right?

Then Allah puts the letters together and B and E are joined to become “BE” and it is?

Can you not see therefore how Jesus might be perceived as God? Because without the letters B and E there can be no Creation!

In the same way, without Allah joining the letters B and E together, again, there can be no Creation!

Allah and His Word are essential for Creation to exist.

Does that make sense? (its a bit tricky for me to explain what is in my head, but I hope I did not confuse you )

.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No.

When Jesus sent out His apostles to baptize, teach and preach unto the whole world until Jesus returns. Jesus confirmed this commission upon the apostles and breathed upon them the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus when the Apostles baptized, preached and taught the divine mysteries of Jesus Christ, they did so in the power of the Holy Spirit, what is Sacred Oral Tradition or God breathed.

These same teachings and divine revelations were later recorded under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit. But not all was written what Jesus said and did, but the Apostles revealed these orally in their oral Sacred Tradition which all Christians since Pentecost follow today. Both the Oral Sacred Tradition and Sacred Writings are practiced, taught and preached in the Catholic Church today unchanged 2000 years and counting.

Thus both Sacred Scripture and Oral Sacred Tradition are both God breathed.

The Oral Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture possess the full deposit of the Christian faith Jesus revealed in the fullness of times. It is here where God teaches us., not men.

To possess one without the other, you do not have the mind of Christ nor the Spirit of Truth who teaches and reveals to us what God divinely revealed to the human race.

For NO ONE can confess Jesus is Lord, without the Holy Spirit.

If one pretends to know God without God’s Spirit, then that one can only pretend to know God from creation with a limited carnal mind of logic by ones own spirit.

Sacred Oral Tradition and Sacred Tradition reveal both the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the fullness of Jesus humanity as the One Word of God Incarnate.

Neglect one of these, and you do not have the full Jesus Christ personified.

Peace be with you