V
Vinny213
Guest
I heard that the Roman Catholic understanding of tradition is identical to the gnostic one. Is this true? If it is not then what exactly is tradition when in contrast to scripture?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yikes!
What, exactly, is the ‘gnostic understanding of tradition’? “Make it up as you go along”…?
Anyway, the Catholic understanding is that there is the Deposit of the Faith, which is the self-revelation of God to humanity. There are two modes through which this revelation is transmitted to us: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In this context, ‘Sacred Tradition’ means “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.” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially paragraphs 74 and following.)
V
Vinny213
Guest
Do you know what the gnostic understanding of tradition is?
G
Gorgias
Guest
No; I’ve never heard that phrase used before. Hence, the question in my earlier post:
T
tdgesq
Guest
I’m not sure where you heard that one. Gnosticism generally asserts that only a few privileged have knowledge of revealed truth, and it is only accessible by them. On the other hand, Catholicism teaches that revealed truth can be known by all, which is why the Catholic Church teaches what it has received through Tradition.
As stated in Matthew 28:19 - “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
V
Vinny213
Guest
The gnostics also asserted that there are things in Tradition not written down in scripture and independent of it.
V
Vinny213
Guest
I found this definition:
Also, Mathison’s definition of Tradition II as a “secret oral tradition” (p. 45) is problematic in light of the historical evidence. The notion of a secret oral tradition was refuted by Irenaeus in his apologia against the Gnostics. The notion of an extra-scriptural revelation coequal to Scripture was rejected in the Montanist controversy. The early Church recognized the Apostolic Tradition in both written and oral forms as interdependent and binding on the Church. There is no historical evidence in the early Church of an extra-scriptural authority independent of Scripture — Mathison’s Tradition II. This means that there could not have been a Tradition II — as Mathison defined it — in the early Church. What Mathison labels Tradition II would not emerge until the Middle Ages in the Catholic Church as a result of the flourishing of Scholasticism and canon law. Thus, the way Mathison sets up the categories of Tradition I and II is problematic on conceptual and historical grounds, and as presently defined impedes our understanding of the historical data.
Also, Mathison’s definition of Tradition II as a “secret oral tradition” (p. 45) is problematic in light of the historical evidence. The notion of a secret oral tradition was refuted by Irenaeus in his apologia against the Gnostics. The notion of an extra-scriptural revelation coequal to Scripture was rejected in the Montanist controversy. The early Church recognized the Apostolic Tradition in both written and oral forms as interdependent and binding on the Church. There is no historical evidence in the early Church of an extra-scriptural authority independent of Scripture — Mathison’s Tradition II. This means that there could not have been a Tradition II — as Mathison defined it — in the early Church. What Mathison labels Tradition II would not emerge until the Middle Ages in the Catholic Church as a result of the flourishing of Scholasticism and canon law. Thus, the way Mathison sets up the categories of Tradition I and II is problematic on conceptual and historical grounds, and as presently defined impedes our understanding of the historical data.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Uh, well, Satanists worship a deity and Christians worship a deity. So Satanists and Christians have something in common too? I’m not understanding your reasoning here.
The gnostics believed that only the privileged few were entitled to revealed truth. Many times, although not always, this was attributed to some kind of infused knowledge that the gnostic received directly. Both of these notions are contrary to Catholic teaching where (1) Tradition is passed down from the apostles to the apostolic successors and (2) those truths are taught to and accessible to all Christians.
There is also the inconvenient fact that the gnostic teachings contradict both the revelation contained in scripture and the revelation contained in tradition.
Putting aside for the moment that Keith Mathison is a Reformed Protestant, his analysis is a good example of what I’ve already posted. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim a secret oral tradition. It claims a tradition that has been openly taught. Montanus claimed that he solely received direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church maintains that the Tradition it has received is the teaching handed down from the Apostles.
You can dispute those claims, but they are certainly different from gnosticism.
V
Vinny213
Guest
But the church teaches that it can make up doctrine as it goes along like the gnostics did. Also the gnostics said that scripture was not clear, and that many things necessary for salvation are separate ad not found in the bible.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… pardon? No, the Church doesn’t say that! It does say that there is teaching authority in the Church (this is what the word ‘magisterium’ means: “teaching authority”), and it asserts that, for certain expressions of teaching of faith and morals, the Church is protected from doctrinal error. However, this does not mean that the Church believes that it can make things up “as it goes along”! First, dogmatic and doctrinal teachings proceed from Scriptural truths. Moreover, if it were simply a matter of “making it up as you go along”, then the Church would be able to say whatever it wants, whenever it wants. That isn’t the case at all – Church teaching conforms to the truths previously declared in Scripture and in earlier Church doctrine!
Are you asserting that what the Scriptures teach is always clear and without the need of interpretation? Many Christians would disagree…
You’re confusing me. Are you saying that the Church teaches that “many things necessary for salvation are not found in the Bible”? Really? Can you point to one example, please?
Blessings,
G.
M
meme1961
Guest
This is a difficult topic, so let us start with the basics of formal linguistics.
Firstly, signs (words, punctuation, etc.) have no meaning whatsoever. Meaning is what we bring to signs, not what we take from them. This can be proven in multiple ways: The Rosetta stone, and the necessity for it, the process we use for learning “foreign” languages (and the need to learn them, instead of just “knowing” them), the process used to teach children to read (which, if you watch closely, is simply the process of teaching children the meaning to bring to the signs).
This is the fundamental falsification of Sola Scriptura . . . signs have no meaning.
There is another important part of formal linguistics that needs to be considered: pragmatics. One can think of “pragmatics” as being similar to “context”, though not entirely. Some words, phrases, even whole speeches consist of signs that, even taken all together, are ambiguous. The ambiguity, if it can be resolved at all, is resolved through context. Consider the use of the word “cool.” Tone of voice, context of use, and other signs (dress, facial hair, length of hair, etc.) can change the meaning from “a temperature lower than ideal” to “socially superior” to “awesome.”
This demonstrates the importance of Tradition . . . Tradition is the context in which Scripture is to be read, and Tradition tells us the meaning to bring to the words of Scripture.
If Scripture is meaningless without Tradition, then of what use is Scripture at all? The answer to that lies in the two concepts of the syllogism, and of “information hygiene.”
Scripture is the “backup” copy of tradition. The process for copying the Torah is an example of how to maintain a high fidelity in the reproduction of Scripture. Once written down, fallible human memory is “backed up”, and when copied, the copies can be checked against the original to guarantee that the copy is correct and complete.
But let us not forget the importance of the syllogism. In effect, Scripture can be viewed as a whole thing, a thing of many parts, yes, but a whole nonetheless. It is this holism that allows Scripture to be internally logical, and it provides us with multiple different statements that are part of the whole Truth. Some mistakes in interpretation can be avoided or repaired by the process of expanding the scope of an argument to include more pieces of Scripture.
Just as a three legged stool is made stable, not by any single leg, but by all three legs acting in unison, a mistaken interpretation can be “repaired” by the process of logical induction. One can think of this as being analogous to solving a Sudoku puzzle . . . a single cell can, when checked against the constraints of its containing row, contain any one out of a set of three candidate numbers. When checked against its containing column, one of those candidate numbers might be excluded, and when checked against its box, only one of the remaining candidate numbers might remain to be asserted as the sole remaining choice.
More to the point: if one passage of scripture can be interpreted three different ways, then the inclusion of another passage that is related to the same concept can help us understand the proper interpretation of that scripture by helping to exclude an improper interpretation, or by supporting a proper interpretation.
A RC would might rightfully claim that the Bible is materially sufficient, but with that pre-supposes that enough of the Tradition has already been taught to the reader for them to have internalized the context.
One of the first things I had to do when I started the conversion process was to “Learn to Speak Catholic.” Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus may all use very similar words and even phrases when speaking about their faith, but the meaning that they intend for you to bring to the words when they speak them can range from mildly different, to radically different. Even the conversion from Protestant to Catholic requires learning a new dialect, one that uses a lot of the very same words.
Firstly, signs (words, punctuation, etc.) have no meaning whatsoever. Meaning is what we bring to signs, not what we take from them. This can be proven in multiple ways: The Rosetta stone, and the necessity for it, the process we use for learning “foreign” languages (and the need to learn them, instead of just “knowing” them), the process used to teach children to read (which, if you watch closely, is simply the process of teaching children the meaning to bring to the signs).
This is the fundamental falsification of Sola Scriptura . . . signs have no meaning.
There is another important part of formal linguistics that needs to be considered: pragmatics. One can think of “pragmatics” as being similar to “context”, though not entirely. Some words, phrases, even whole speeches consist of signs that, even taken all together, are ambiguous. The ambiguity, if it can be resolved at all, is resolved through context. Consider the use of the word “cool.” Tone of voice, context of use, and other signs (dress, facial hair, length of hair, etc.) can change the meaning from “a temperature lower than ideal” to “socially superior” to “awesome.”
This demonstrates the importance of Tradition . . . Tradition is the context in which Scripture is to be read, and Tradition tells us the meaning to bring to the words of Scripture.
If Scripture is meaningless without Tradition, then of what use is Scripture at all? The answer to that lies in the two concepts of the syllogism, and of “information hygiene.”
Scripture is the “backup” copy of tradition. The process for copying the Torah is an example of how to maintain a high fidelity in the reproduction of Scripture. Once written down, fallible human memory is “backed up”, and when copied, the copies can be checked against the original to guarantee that the copy is correct and complete.
But let us not forget the importance of the syllogism. In effect, Scripture can be viewed as a whole thing, a thing of many parts, yes, but a whole nonetheless. It is this holism that allows Scripture to be internally logical, and it provides us with multiple different statements that are part of the whole Truth. Some mistakes in interpretation can be avoided or repaired by the process of expanding the scope of an argument to include more pieces of Scripture.
Just as a three legged stool is made stable, not by any single leg, but by all three legs acting in unison, a mistaken interpretation can be “repaired” by the process of logical induction. One can think of this as being analogous to solving a Sudoku puzzle . . . a single cell can, when checked against the constraints of its containing row, contain any one out of a set of three candidate numbers. When checked against its containing column, one of those candidate numbers might be excluded, and when checked against its box, only one of the remaining candidate numbers might remain to be asserted as the sole remaining choice.
More to the point: if one passage of scripture can be interpreted three different ways, then the inclusion of another passage that is related to the same concept can help us understand the proper interpretation of that scripture by helping to exclude an improper interpretation, or by supporting a proper interpretation.
A RC would might rightfully claim that the Bible is materially sufficient, but with that pre-supposes that enough of the Tradition has already been taught to the reader for them to have internalized the context.
One of the first things I had to do when I started the conversion process was to “Learn to Speak Catholic.” Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus may all use very similar words and even phrases when speaking about their faith, but the meaning that they intend for you to bring to the words when they speak them can range from mildly different, to radically different. Even the conversion from Protestant to Catholic requires learning a new dialect, one that uses a lot of the very same words.
K
Khalid
Guest
I’m not sure the OP understands what he’s saying, based on his “gnostic-statements” and a private exchange wherein he demands that the Church via Trent teaches that we are justified (and saved) on the basis of condign (e.g. ex natura rei) merit (!), which is pure Pelagian heresy.
If the Church taught that, the gates of Hell prevailed. A long time ago.
If the Church taught that, the gates of Hell prevailed. A long time ago.
V
Vinny213
Guest
The Church does not teach that we are justified condignly but that we merit Eternal life condignly. I
F
fhansen
Guest
Is there a difference? Justified people aren’t necessairily saved? God might send a just man to hell? There are two aspects of justification from my understanding. God first forgives sin and washes us via Baptism, making us a new creation. At that point sanctifying grace is restored; we’re fully just; no unrighteousness remains in us that can separate us from Him. But we can lose our justice from that point on; we can turn away from God again. We can turn to sin, and we can also oppose God’s plan by refusing to “invest” grace given us. Justification is both an instantaneous event and a process: a life-long struggle against sin and towards increasing righteousness.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Yes, there is a difference between justification and eternal life because not all who are at one point justified will enter into eternal life. There is a difference in how merit factors into each as well. Regarding justification, the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent says,
“… we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
The Council of Trent is very clear that man can in no way merit the grace of justification. However, the Church teaches that man in the state of grace may merit his reward, eternal life, condignly.
V
Vinny213
Guest
But do we merit our reward of heaven based on a promise? What is the difference between condign merit and congrous merit? Is there a strict equality between our works and reward?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I will try to explain condign merit to the best of my ubderstanding. I may very well be missing the mark, so I hope someone will correct me if I err.
St. Thomas answers the question in the Summa Theologica. He explains in the first paragraph the merit of our works as they proceed from ourselves and in the second as they proceed from grace.
I answer that, Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.
If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14: “Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.” And the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Romans 8:17: “If sons, heirs also.”
newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm#article3
In the first respect, our works do not merit heaven in any way condignly because of the infinite disparity between our works and the supernatural reward. However, even though work and reward are on infinitely different orders, there is nevertheless a proportionality between the two (“He will render to every man according to his deeds,” Romans 2:6), and so the two are said to be congruous.
However in the second respect, we can be said to merit heaven condignly becaus our works, moved by supernatural grace derive their worth from the dignity of God’s grace, and because God has assigned heaven as our rightful inheritence as adopted sons.
His prooftext for condign merit is 2 Timothy 4:8: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. Thomas says that what is given in a fair judgment must be a condign reward. Since the St. Paul calls the Lord the righteous juge, it must be that heaven is merited condignly.
Read the link and see if you think I have understood correctly or have spoken unclearly.
St. Thomas answers the question in the Summa Theologica. He explains in the first paragraph the merit of our works as they proceed from ourselves and in the second as they proceed from grace.
I answer that, Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.
If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14: “Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.” And the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Romans 8:17: “If sons, heirs also.”
newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm#article3
In the first respect, our works do not merit heaven in any way condignly because of the infinite disparity between our works and the supernatural reward. However, even though work and reward are on infinitely different orders, there is nevertheless a proportionality between the two (“He will render to every man according to his deeds,” Romans 2:6), and so the two are said to be congruous.
However in the second respect, we can be said to merit heaven condignly becaus our works, moved by supernatural grace derive their worth from the dignity of God’s grace, and because God has assigned heaven as our rightful inheritence as adopted sons.
His prooftext for condign merit is 2 Timothy 4:8: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. Thomas says that what is given in a fair judgment must be a condign reward. Since the St. Paul calls the Lord the righteous juge, it must be that heaven is merited condignly.
Read the link and see if you think I have understood correctly or have spoken unclearly.
V
Vinny213
Guest
But do we receive heaven based on God’s promise?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. (1 John 2:25)
You are asking a strange question. What exactly are you getting at?
You are asking a strange question. What exactly are you getting at?
K
Khalid
Guest
I’ve been a poor interpreter of this thread, but, again, going on private correspondence, I believe he is asking whether we obtain eternal life of the promise (pactum) of God to humanity - that is, that God has promised salvation for those who perform certain works, which, on their own, would be worthless (exemplified by Scotus’ axiom that “a sacrifice is worth exactly as much as whatever God accepts it for”) - or whether we can through condign merit obtain salvation by the very nature of things (ex natura rei), such as the Pelagians believed - that, if we perform certain actions (such as the law of God), God is compelled by his very nature to reward it: our merit becoming God’s debt, and thus teaching that man saves himself and nullifying religion.
The former is associated with the mediaeval via moderna, the latter with Pelagians, Socinians, etc. in every age. Neither is correct.
The former is associated with the mediaeval via moderna, the latter with Pelagians, Socinians, etc. in every age. Neither is correct.
- Status