No list of RCC Traditions???

[Eileen_T]

Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the Tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy Apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed Tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. 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” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood, the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and Apostolic Tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

…and many more…

 

[HailMary]

Thanks for trying to help us Protestants who just have a hard time grasping the CC’s concept of Tradition.
Let me know if anyone composites a detailed list sometime.

The reason there is no list set down in stone is because of the same reason that in your family there is not a list of how things are done (ie: when and how you eat dinner, birthday parties, christmas celebrations, television shows, etc). Once you become part of a family, sooner or later, you pick up the family raditionsT (not to be confused with customs) that the family holds sacred.

 

[joshua_b]

If i may chime in here for a minute…

Several posters have stated that Sacred Tradition is linked to all other areas of the faith, and I feel it worth expounding on that a little bit, because most non-Catholics view everything not explicitly found in Scripture as extra-Biblical or as “tradition”. It is important to understand however that this is not the case.

“Sacred Tradition” is the faith as it was taught to the Apostles by Jesus. A well known Catholic priest (Father John Corapi) in his lecture series, once likened the Deposit of Faith (the sum total of official Catholic Teaching) to the Trinity. Before anyone flys off the handle here, let me state I am NOT saying that the Catholic Church is Omniscent, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent…this is nothing more than a similie (it’s just a literary device folks, so noone misquote me here about “those crazy Catholics believe…”) Anyway…
The Trinity is inseparable. Wherever there is Jesus, there is also God and the Holy Spirit. Wherever the Holy Spirit is, there also is God and Jesus. By the very essence of the Being of God, it is impossible for one part to exist independent of the other two.

The Catholic Deposit of Faith is the same in that it consists of Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterial Teaching. No one part of the Deposit of Faith can exist without the others. In Sacred Tradition, you will find the totality of Scripture and Magisterial Teaching. In Magisterial Teaching you will find the totallity of Sacred Tradition and Scripture. They are so tightly interwoven that it is impossible to come up with a “list” of Sacred Tradition as separate from Scripture or the official teaching of the Church.

As Catholics, we place a great deal of confidence in the Deposit of Faith because it has never been changed. No one, NOT EVEN THE POPE, is allowed to change the Sacred Deposit of Faith (this may come as a surprise to many). The Catholic Church has changed many of its disciplines and customs (also known as tradition …spelled with a small “t”), but those are neither Sacred Tradition, nor are they considered as part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

 

[MrS]

My family has traditions.
My aunty always gets the first slice of the Christmas pudding.
My brother always gets the shank off the leg of lamb when it is cooked.
We always go to our friend Barbara’s on Melbourne Cup Day.
We always have party pies and hot dogs watching the AFL Grand Final.
There are many more, and they aren’t written down.
But when a new member enters our family by way of birth or marriage, they are indoctrined with these traditions through example.
If a tradition wishes to be changed, deleted, or a new one added, the head of our family decides (my mum). She only agrees with the change if it is good for all of us, and keeps to our family values.

For those of you not following the analogy…
mum = Pope
family = Catholic Church
family values = Jesus’ teachings
birth or marriage = convert to Catholicism

Sorry Kellie, but this is just the kind of thinking that either confuses our Protestant Separated Brethren, or re-inforces their misconceptions of the Catholic Faith.

All the things you mentioned, your family traditions, are “restricted” to your family. They are not binding - or of interest - on anyone outside your family. And your mum does not speak for all families in all times in all ages as a Pope often does.

Catholics do have “traditions”, like the color of vestments, reading the Gospel on the left side of the sanctuary etc.

But the “list” people are looking for here is that of the “Traditions”. These must be understood as the non-changing Truths of the Church… the eternal and un-changable things that God reveals to us.

We further believe and teach that there are NO NEW Revelations of Truth after the death of John, the beloved disciple.

Everything the Church teaches as Truth already exists, and has always existed and will never cease to exist.

Think of this translation as more accurate than the normal one we often see: “What soever you shall bind on earth, shall have been bound in Heaven… and what soever you shall loose on earth, shall have been loosed in heaven.”

… shall have been bound… it - Truth - is already and has always been in heaven… it is Jesus Himself… The Pope, and the Bishops in union with him don’t have a list to work from… They don’t need one. They have the 2000 year old Traditions… much of which is readily available in Scripture. Much of that teaching often takes centuries of study to understand. Hence the recent dogmas of the Immaculate Conceptions and Assumption. They were always there… and were made clear in God’s time.

Every belief in Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament, first was given to us orally - and the Tradition of that Truth, was handed on orally until it was written down.

Tradition preceedes the canon of Scripture.

Under His Divine guidance, The Holy Spirit guided certain Catholic Christian Leaders (The Apostles and those choosen by THEM) to preach the Gospel) to become the human authors of the NT. Much of the oral Tradition now was also written.

The same Catholic Christian leaders - fallible men, and sinners all - were the same, and are the same individuals who have and who will be the final voice to declare these Truths. The don’t/can’t invent them. They can only make them clear for the rest of us. The Holy Spirit will prevent them from declaring error in matters of Faith and Morals (gift of infallibility).

I would thus ask our Protestant friends for a list of Truths found in OUR book - The Bible - that don’t first appear in Tradition. It would be an tough job for them… just as compiling a list of Traditions, would be tough for us.

Finally… think of Jesus Himself. He has always existed…but it was only 2000 years ago that God saw fit to make clear His existence for all mankind.

 

[julebenn]

One of the smaller points on this is that big “T” traditions are so central to the faith that they have not been “oral” for a long, long time. People here have cited the Trinity as a prime example. Anything you would find on the “A” list pretty much stopped being oral tradition by the immediate sub-apostolic age. The ante-Nicene Fathers often were the first to write things down the were later fully codified into Tradition.

Three more things that fall under that heading of Tradition are the forumulations of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and the table of contents of the Holy Bible.

An earlier poster asked, “What evidence do you have that Paul’s “oral” traditions refer to doctrines other than the Gospel truth?” Answer: We have NO such evidence because no Tradition of the Church will EVER contradict “Gospel truth.” The very question stands upon a false assumption.

Any time you THINK the Catholic Church believes and teaches something contrary to “Gospel truth,” you need to probe more deeply into the subject using Catholic sources, because NOTHING the Church teaches will ever be found to contradict Scripture.

Your tradition is undefined teaching and nothing to test them against, in contrast we can use the scriptures, and anyone can read and examine for ourself. Please note the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses” to Tradition. so the only place to go is the
magisterium. The same bishops, who appeal to Tradition as their divine source of their teaching, are themselves that same Tradition.

 

[Philthy]

Hi,

So there is no list you are aware of? The links given gives us why Sacred Tradition is important but they dont say what they are. It is also very vague. It says we have to believe what the CC says is Sacred Tradition but yet wont tell us what they are. I will assume that Sacred Tradition is passed down from Christ to the Apostles and then to the popes—right? So each Pope knows all the Tradition that there is—right? Why wouldnt He want all of us to know? Why hide them?Even Jesus said to Pilate that He has never hidden any of His teachings. They were all public. Jesus did not hide anything from anyone. He wanted us to know the Truth. So why not write them down? Some of you may say there are too many to be written down. I would agree and then I would say then there are too many to remember orally as well. I think that leaves Sacred Tradition wide open for false teachings to creep in over time. If something comes up in the CC that cant be explained biblically, the CC has the right to add it and say well it is part of Tradition.
Please, I dont mean to sound like Im attacking the CC it just doesnt make sense to me is all.

It is a little confusing, I agree. But lets face it, much of Christianity is confusing.

AllforHim:

How do you know they are telling the truth? There is nothing to hold it up against except the bible. If the bible says nothing on the subject then what?

While we are on the topic of things being confusing, the “bible” has to go right to the top of the list. Here we have a book spanning many centuries, literary styles and authors without a table of contents and without a single book of the OT which supports the concept that a NT is forthcoming, and without even a hint from Christ himself that a NT is forthcoming. It was the Church, guided by the holy Spirit through the ordinary means of Church leaders meeting to pray and discuss the canon that resulted in the bible as we know it.Yet you accept the bible as the gold standard to hold the Church’s teachings up to. How is that not confusing? Its all confusing.

allforhim:

IMHO God wrote down in the Bible everything He knew we could handle and all we needed to know for this lifetime on earth. If you take Sacred Tradition out(whatever it may be)the bible stands on its own just fine.

The problem is that if you “take Sacred Tradition out” then you no longer have a bible to “stand on its own”. The bible is a product Tradition - it did not simply appear like the 10 commandments handed to Moses. All of the apocrypha and other writings would be equal contenders for the title of the inspired Scriptures. I suggest you read some of the books that Protestants took out of the bible and see how Scriptural they are. Do you really think you would know the difference?
Of course you wouldnt - I know, I read through the Catholic Bible cover to cover before I had any idea that different Christians had different canons and I wrote down many verses which “spoke to my heart”. Later, when I discovered that there were 2 canons I went and reviewed those verses and guess what? Some of them were from canonical Scripture and some from the deuterocanonical Scripture.
Lastly, your “belief” that God wrote everything down that we needed is OK, but you need to realize that God didnt bother to write down that it was Him “writing” even though Luke, a non-Apostle, was claiming authorship. All of the NT writers with the exception of Paul and John seem to be oblivious that they are writing “Scripture”. It is all confusing when looked at purely objectively. You seem to have simply accepted some things by faith *apart from reason *(the canon of the bible and its inspiration) and rejected other things (a living, visible Church guided by the holy Spirit) based upon faith apart from reason - the exact same standard - and somehow come to the conclusion that the things you accept are reasonable and the things your reject are unreasonable. That is also confusing…

 

[mercygate]

Your tradition is undefined teaching and nothing to test them against, in contrast we can use the scriptures, and anyone can read and examine for ourself.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are aware, are you not, that Catholics not only can read and examine Scripture, but produced the New Testament and ratified the OT canon? Moreover, if you read any promulgation of doctrine from Catholic sources, you will find it weighty with scriptural references. To say that Sacred Tradition is “undefined teaching and nthing to test them against” is a gross misunderstanding of the process.

As I stated in the post to which you have responded, no Tradition can contradict Scripture. You are reacting from a misapprehension of the Catholic view of Scripture. Tradition stands at the service of Scripture, which it elucidates. Scripture illuminates Tradition and Tradition elucidates Scripture. They are inseparable.

Please note the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses” to Tradition.

No argument there. But when a doctrine is clarified, we appeal to those witnesses as credible because they witness to Apostolic and immediate subapostolic times.

so the only place to go is the
magisterium. The same bishops, who appeal to Tradition as their divine source of their teaching, are themselves that same Tradition.

Yes: we do believe that the bishops, in communion with the Apostolic See, through the power of the Holy Spirit promised to Christ’s Church by the Lord Himself, do elucidate necessary and holy truths – as they did at Nicea and in the other ecumenical councils. The bishiops themselves are not the Tradition but they develop doctrine according to the needs of the Church in clarifying Sacred Tradition (e.g., defining Transubstation out of the ever-held doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

 

[mrs_abbott]

My family has traditions.
My aunty always gets the first slice of the Christmas pudding.
My brother always gets the shank off the leg of lamb when it is cooked.
We always go to our friend Barbara’s on Melbourne Cup Day.
We always have party pies and hot dogs watching the AFL Grand Final.
There are many more, and they aren’t written down.
But when a new member enters our family by way of birth or marriage, they are indoctrined with these traditions through example.
If a tradition wishes to be changed, deleted, or a new one added, the head of our family decides (my mum). She only agrees with the change if it is good for all of us, and keeps to our family values.

For those of you not following the analogy…
mum = Pope
family = Catholic Church
family values = Jesus’ teachings
birth or marriage = convert to Catholicism

I like this analogy. It’s short and sweet and to the point.

 

[estesbob]

Your tradition is undefined teaching and nothing to test them against,** in contrast we can use the scriptures, and anyone can read and examine for ourself.**

And therein lies the problem. You interpert Scripture without the benfit of 2,000 years of teachings and traditition. I believe that the Immacualte Conception(a tradition) is supported by Scripture but i dont have to stop there-my conclusion is supported by the writing of our Church fathers and 2,000 years of teaching. You approach has thus far led to some 30,000 different versions of christianity and probably 1,000,000,000 more variations of Scriptue interperations.

Not only does tradition never Contadict Scripture but if my “personal” interpertattion of Scripture contradicts Tradition I know i am wrong. You , OTH, have nothing to “test” your interperatations against other than your own personal biases. God did not leave it for each suceeding generation to figure things out on its own. Scipture is not a puzzle box that needs to be solved for Salvation. The Church has guided us for 2,000 years using Scripture and tradition, You can not seperate the two.

 

[VociMike]

Your tradition is undefined teaching and nothing to test them against, in contrast we can use the scriptures, and anyone can read and examine for ourself.

You call the Catechism, the Council documents, the papal encyclicals “nothing”? What then would you regard as “something”?!

Please note the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses” to Tradition. so the only place to go is the
magisterium. The same bishops, who appeal to Tradition as their divine source of their teaching, are themselves that same Tradition.

No, the bishops in union with the pope are not Tradition, they are magisterium. You had it right the first time through, but got it wrong at the end.

Again, this all comes down to an undefensible and God-insulting notion that God somehow either ran out of the power to continue to guide His Church into all truth, or else He ran out of interest in doing so. The God of Catholicism is neither powerless nor disinterested in His children, so we just don’t see a problem like you do.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

This question has come up here a number of times and it always amuses me when it does. Why must there be a “list” of what is considered Sacred Tradition? Since when is the sum total of a religion consolidated into a handy-dandy simplistic list? Is the Bible in a “list” format? Are the doctrines and beliefs found in the Bible in a list format? Let’s try to be mature and consistent, at least.

Good points. However, a Protestant (or anyone else, for that matter) who’s considering Catholicism needs some reliable way of getting up to speed. The Catechism and RCIA cover a lot, but not everything. Not even a tenth of it, in fact. One can convert to Catholicism, believing he’s got all the bases covered, and later discover a widely held belief or practice that might have affected his decision. I just picked that scenario out of a hat, but it illustrates why a fellow might reasonably want some way of finding out what gives.

The Catechism is one good source to find much of what we call Sacred Tradition, but a lot of it is contained in how the Church has worshipped and lived for 2000 years as handed down by the Apostles. Just like many a family has it’s own practices, some written down, some not, the Church doesn’t have to have a list for everything.

Think of it in practical terms, not in confrontational and nit-picking terms: how often do Catholics find themselves in a position to agonize whether something they are considering doing or asked to believe in is Sacred Tradition or not? Give us some specific examples of of how Catholics could be confused or unsure about this. As long as you posit it as a foolish and vague “how do you know” general question, it’s impossible to answer. How about some specifics?

I don’t know … how about these non-Christmas/Easter holidays that appear to occur twice or thrice a week, and the traditional at-church and at-home practices associated with them? Or take a peek at the “Liturgy and Sacraments” sub-forum. Virtually every one of the threads there concerns a topic of which the average non-cradle Catholic is utterly ignorant, and will never learn about by consulting the Catechism or just by watching one or a dozen masses. “In the hand or in the mouth”? “Genufle-what”? “Advent?” “Vestment colours” (we thought they always wore black)? I’m not asking folks to answer these–just offering some specific examples, as you asked the OP for.

It’s more than “joining a new family,” as another poster put it: for the uninitiated, entering the Church is more like moving to a new country, and you can’t blame someone for wondering if some sort of Baedeker’s or Lonely Planet-type resource is available.

 

[az_4_faith]

First of all, let’s not assume that “Cradle-Catholics” are born into the faith at their baptism knowing everything there is to know about the Catholic faith, and that those who choose to join the church from perhaps another denomination are expected to know everything that there is about the CC before they decide to join.

Like everything else in the world, people must take interest in their faith to learn about it. It usually takes a lifetime to learn about it, cradle-catholic or convert.

We all start at the beginning - faith in Jesus Christ, BASIC knowledge of the Bible and - maybe - general history of the Church, the ten commandments – then we build upon that. Some of us got our start learning from our parents and other elders and peers, others from a Catholic education, some from RE, CCD or RCIA, and for many in this wonderful day and age, reliable Internet sources and books.

The Catholic faith is thousands of years old. I doubt if the Pope himself has full knowledge of the faith, the Church and everything She professes and teaches!

 

[MrS]

I…, and will never learn about by consulting the Catechism or just by watching one or a dozen masses. “In the hand or in the mouth”? “Genufle-what”? “Advent?” “Vestment colours” (we thought they always wore black)? I’m not asking folks to answer these–just offering some specific examples, as you asked the OP for.

It’s more than “joining a new family,” as another poster put it: for the uninitiated, entering the Church is more like moving to a new country, and you can’t blame someone for wondering if some sort of Baedeker’s or Lonely Planet-type resource is available.

great wit… hope you planned it…smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

It is so true that so many “Catholics” only go to a funeral Mass… and the vestments used to be only black… and never to Sunday Mass like they are obligated to do.

%between%

 

[joshua_b]

Good points. However, a Protestant (or anyone else, for that matter) who’s considering Catholicism needs some reliable way of getting up to speed. The Catechism and RCIA cover a lot, but not everything. Not even a tenth of it, in fact. One can convert to Catholicism, believing he’s got all the bases covered, and later discover a widely held belief or practice that might have affected his decision.

I respectfully disagree with this. (ok depending on the quality of RCIA…that could be a very valid point, but…) The Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much covers “everything”. It is the consistent norm for the official teachings of the Church. If it is essential Catholic teaching, it IS in the Catechism. The “other things” you refer to (and if you could give an example or two maybe that would clarify what you’re talking about a little bit), if they are not in the Catechism, are either not binding (meaning we are free to hold contrary opinions) or possibly disciplines (also traditions-with a small “t”) that are subject to the discretion of the Bishop.

 

[joshua_b]

Good points. However, a Protestant (or anyone else, for that matter) who’s considering Catholicism needs some reliable way of getting up to speed. The Catechism and RCIA cover a lot, but not everything. Not even a tenth of it, in fact. One can convert to Catholicism, believing he’s got all the bases covered, and later discover a widely held belief or practice that might have affected his decision.

I respectfully disagree with this. (ok depending on the quality of RCIA…that could be a very valid point, but…) The Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much covers “everything”. It is the consistent norm for the official teachings of the Church. If it is essential Catholic teaching, it IS in the Catechism. The “other things” you refer to (and if you could give an example or two maybe that would clarify what you’re talking about a little bit), if they are not in the Catechism, are either not binding (meaning we are free to hold contrary opinions) or possibly disciplines (also traditions-with a small “t”) that are subject to the discretion of the Bishop. It is important to realize that there are many customs in the Catholic Church, some even considered “widely practiced” (and some of them not so good) that are not official Church Teaching.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

great wit… hope you planned it…

Oh, if only.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I respectfully disagree with this. (ok depending on the quality of RCIA…that could be a very valid point, but…) The Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much covers “everything”. It is the consistent norm for the official teachings of the Church. If it is essential Catholic teaching, it IS in the Catechism. The “other things” you refer to (and if you could give an example or two maybe that would clarify what you’re talking about a little bit), if they are not in the Catechism, are either not binding (meaning we are free to hold contrary opinions) or possibly disciplines (also traditions-with a small “t”) that are subject to the discretion of the Bishop. It is important to realize that there are many customs in the Catholic Church, some even considered “widely practiced” (and some of them not so good) that are not official Church Teaching.

Sorry to be mysterious: it’s just that concrete examples have such a potential to mutate into thread-hijacking side arguments. I’m just saying that even if they’re not part of official Church teaching, the fact that the Church apparently countenances certain sorts of popular customs or devotions could blindside a convert and give him a case of buyer’s remorse–even lead to resentment and reversion.

That was just an example, in any case, and not necessarily one that I’m resting my argument on. Point is, there are conceivable good reasons for someone to want a resource on the Church’s minor customs and small-t traditions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think there are quite a few books out and about now about “Catholic traditions”, “Why do Catholics do that?” etc.

You have to expect a faith that is as old and widespread as Catholicism to have quite a lot of teachings–and practices. I guess it is hard for some Protestants whose faith was actively against certain practices to see that there is really nothing wrong with, for example, statues, the rosary, etc.

I think that some might worry really that if they ‘give in’ on one thing, that all their own belief foundations will fall like that house on sand. That has to be pretty scary.

So it is understandable that rather than focus on the many things that all Christians share, they go directly to the major part of what their faith tradition (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) ‘protested about in the first place.’ And it must be very difficult to ‘swim the Tiber’ when this is something that is so basic to your Christian heritage, learned at mom’s knee, instilled for years or decades as being “right”–and learning that your faith, well intentioned and Christ loving as all its individuals might be–got wrong. You’re going to have people fighting the hardest to defend what they think is most important.

 

[matthias]

Here is one of the Traditions of the Catholic Church, decreed by councils and protected by the Holy Spirit. Protestants reject Sacred Tradition but they still manage to keep some parts of it around.

Old Testament

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua
• Judges
• Ruth
• 1 Samuel
• 2 Samuel
• 1 Kings
• 2 Kings
• 1 Chronicles
• 2 Chronicles
• Ezra
• Nehemiah
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees
• Job
• Psalms
• Proverbs
• Ecclesiastes
• Song of Songs
• Wisdom
• Sirach
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Lamentations
• Baruch
• Ezekiel
• Daniel
• Hosea
• Joel
• Amos
• Obadiah
• Jonah
• Micah
• Nahum
• Habakkuk
• Zephaniah
• Haggai
• Zechariah
• Malachi
  New Testament
• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Acts
• Romans
• 1 Corinthians
• 2 Corinthians
• Galatians
• Ephesians
• Philippians
• Colossians
• 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians
• 1 Timothy
• 2 Timothy
• Titus
• Philemon
• Hebrews
• James
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• 1 John
• 2 John
• 3 John
• Jude
• Revelation

 

[matthias]

It’s an INDEX.
Inspired in councils.
Protestants reject the councils but don’t seem to have a problem accepting the proclimation of those councils.