Is Scripture a part of Sacred Tradition or not?

[TheAdvocate]

Is Scripture a part of Sacred Tradition or not? In some places, I see Scripture described as distinct from Tradition, but in other places I read, Scripture is described as Written Tradition.

In other words, in some places I see this explained something along these lines: “Sacred Tradition as handed down to us comes in two forms: Written (= the Bible) and Oral Tradition.”

In other places, it is explained something like this: “God revealed Himself to us, and this revelation was handed down to us in two forms, via Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”

As you can see, in the later case, Tradition means only Oral Tradition.

So which is it?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Is Scripture a part of Sacred Tradition or not? In some places, I see Scripture described as distinct from Tradition, but in other places I read, Scripture is described as Written Tradition.

In other words, in some places I see this explained something along these lines: “Sacred Tradition as handed down to us comes in two forms: Written (= the Bible) and Oral Tradition.”

In other places, it is explained something like this: “God revealed Himself to us, and this revelation was handed down to us in two forms, via Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”

As you can see, in the later case, Tradition means only Oral Tradition.

So which is it?

Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition.

I think it is more of a colloquial way of differentiating between the Bible and Church Teaching to separate it as “Scripture and Sacred Tradition”

 

[Cathoholic]

Apostolic Tradition (traditions you were taught by us guys–the Apostles) . . .

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:15, 3:6 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either** by word of mouth or by letter**. . . . . 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Both written and oral but as Jon S said, the usual convention sometimes separates the two conversationally (but not doctrinally).

 

[Suslar]

I think the confusion comes in from a mistaken notion our Protestant brothers and sisters express. . . . many of them seem to think the Catholic Church was founded AFTER the New Testament was written. That the Catholic Church and Scripture are two separate things. But that is not true. The Catholic Church existed first as ordained and instituted by Jesus, and Scripture came from the Church as part of our Sacred Tradition. It was the Catholic Church who defined the Canon . . . and Protestors who removed Books from the OT because they were in conflict with what the new denominations wanted to peach.

Sacred Scripture came from Mother Church and is a part of our Sacred Tradition…

 

[MarcoPolo]

From the Catechism: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#83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Advo,

The Second Vatican Council produced a document called Dei Verbum, whilch answers you question.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

What it says is that both Tradition and Scripture derive from the preaching of the apostles and ultimately from the teaching of Jesus.

1. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)

The teaching authority of the Church, together with Tradition and Scripture, form the sacred trio derived from apostolic preaching.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Thanks so much for your replies, but I’m still getting differing answers (or maybe I’m just slow…). Is Does Tradition include Scripture, yes or no?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks so much for your replies, but I’m still getting differing answers (or maybe I’m just slow…). Is Does Tradition include Scripture, yes or no?

Yes

Without Tradition there is no scripture

 

[TheAdvocate]

From Dei Verbum, 9:

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.

Doesn’t this therefore prove that scripture is NOT considered a part of sacred tradition? The document seems to distinguish between the two.

 

[PJM]

=TheAdvocate;11239516]Is Scripture a part of Sacred Tradition or not? In some places, I see Scripture described as distinct from Tradition, but in other places I read, Scripture is described as Written Tradition.

In other words, in some places I see this explained something along these lines: “Sacred Tradition as handed down to us comes in two forms: Written (= the Bible) and Oral Tradition.”

In other places, it is explained something like this: “God revealed Himself to us, and this revelation was handed down to us in two forms, via Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”

As you can see, in the later case, Tradition means only Oral Tradition.

So which is it?

“Sacred Tradition” I BELIEVE

Is understood by the Magisterium as: … cf. “Those things taught and handed on to the early church by the Apostles.”

Therefore there is a real sense that Sacred Tradition has a major role in the NT Teachings.

I’m less clear of how it effects the OT; which too results form God’s Chosen men as priest, prophets and kings, but I SUSPECT their admonations too fit the discription for Sacred Traditions?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Todd977]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (74-83) seems to use the term “Apostolic Tradition” to refer to both “Sacred Scripture” and “Sacred Tradition,” where Sacred Tradition refers to that part of Apostolic Tradition that was transmitted orally. In other words: Apostolic Tradition = Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition.

 

[Cathoholic]

Doesn’t this therefore prove that scripture is NOT considered a part of sacred tradition?

No.

It proves they both come from the same source.

The document seems to distinguish between the two.

There is a distinguishing feature. The vehicle is the distinguishing feature but not the source.

Consider a NON-Divine source for a second and see if this doesn’t make the teaching a little easier to internalize.

If I have a keg of root beer with two spigots (different types or styles of spigots) and you draw out some root beer from each spigot, you get the same root beer from the same keg of root beer (wellspring) despite having different styles of spigots.

Now consider a Divine Wellspring source:

If I get Divine Revelation from Oral Tradition (let’s ay in approximately 50 A.D.) and then I later get Divine Revelation from Written Tradition, the source was the same for BOTH. The source was God.

The vehicle of the first one might be the Apostle Thomas in what we now call India. The vehicle of the second one might be Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John from the Gospels.

But these teachings ultimately all came from the Divine Wellspring, the same source—God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

From Dei Verbum, 9:

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.

Doesn’t this therefore prove that scripture is NOT considered a part of sacred tradition? The document seems to distinguish between the two.

No, as CCC#83 says (quoted above), even the New Testament itself is an example of Tradition at work. I might also add CCC#120 which says that the discernment of the entire canon is also part of Tradition. And, to reiterate CCC#81 (quoted above), Scripture is the “Word written” and Tradition is the “whole Word.” Thus, Scripture is part of Tradition.

 

[Ranp]

Is Scripture a part of Sacred Tradition or not?

I highly suggest the book Tradition and the Church (1928) by Monsignor George Agius.

This is without doubt one of the best books ever written on Holy Tradition. What I like about the book is that it explains the fullness of Holy Tradition, which just cannot be explain on a forum. The book is an easy and pleasant read.

Ran Pleasant