Question about Tradition

[Kliska]

Jesus quoted scripture but never wrote a word Himself; the Apostles learned exclusively from what He said and what He did. In turn, the Apostles taught their disciples by their oral preaching and teaching, by their personal example, and by their written letters. Finally, the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, continue to teach as Jesus and the Apostles did - from the scriptures, from their manner of life and from their oral teaching.

Thank you for your explanation and illustration, Randy. I do understand what Tradition is and the argument for it. My questions really fall on the last paragraph of your post, and more specifically the last sentence. Is it your POV that (let’s stick to the RCC for my lack of knowledge; sake) the modern RCC, the modern mass, the modern way of dressing, and the actions of the priests, Bishops, etc… would match the way they would have done things back in Acts? If not, why not?

Was the skeletal structure there and then it was fleshed out by the Holy Spirit via the Magisterium and Popes over time, or was it fully fleshed out then as well as now?

 

[JRKH]

Hello James,
Did some of the early Fathers you mentioned have any personal interaction with any of the apostles like the Apostles Paul and Peter or early Christian missionaries like Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, etc, or were they just natural leaders who sprang up in their respective areas after hearing and believing the gospel message from the descendants of those early Christians who received the gospel from the apostles and/or early Christian missionaries? Just curious.

I will try to read up more on this subject. Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the topic.

This is not an either or question - but a both and - Certainly these men were exposed to the teachings of the Apostles - either directly from their lips or from the those taught by the Apostles and succeeded the Apostles. They were also natural leaders, raised up by God within His Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for your explanation and illustration, Randy. I do understand what Tradition is and the argument for it. My questions really fall on the last paragraph of your post, and more specifically the last sentence. Is it your POV that (let’s stick to the RCC for my lack of knowledge; sake) the modern RCC, the modern mass, the modern way of dressing, and the actions of the priests, Bishops, etc… would match the way they would have done things back in Acts? If not, why not?

Was the skeletal structure there and then it was fleshed out by the Holy Spirit via the Magisterium and Popes over time, or was it fully fleshed out then as well as now?

In the first few centuries, not much of anything was fleshed out…and yet the faith was delievered once for all to the saints.

How is this possible?

Well, as you have suggested, the fullness of the Gospel had been revealed, but we did not fully understand what we had been given. But we have pondered, prayed and lived what we have received, and we have developed new insights that may have been unknown to the Early Church. We call this “Development of Doctrine”. Frank Sheed put it this way:

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents. So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper. This development in the Church’s understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world. Science, for instance, progresses, but its progress consists to a large extent in discovering and discarding its own errors. The teaching of the Church develops by seeing further truths. At every stage the Church adds something: but not at the cost of discarding anything. At every stage all she teaches is true: at no stage does she teach all that is contained in the Truth.

This development–which we find in theology and nowhere else–combines two things: the work of men’s minds, the over-ruling protection of God. In theology, as in science, progress comes by the minds of men working on what they have been taught: but left to themselves, men may simply make further mistakes. In science they do so. In the teaching of the Church they do not: and the reason is that God intervenes, to prevent the teaching of error by His Church. God’s actions–whether revelation or sacrament or miracle-- are never labour-saving devices: God does not do them to save men the trouble of doing what they can very well do for themselves. In revelation, for instance, God teaches men what they could not (at any rate could not with absolute sureness) find out for themselves: but having given them that, He leaves it to them to meditate upon it and arrive at a clearer understanding of it. He does not do their thinking for them.

 

[Kliska]

In the first few centuries, not much of anything was fleshed out…and yet the faith was delievered once for all to the saints.

How is this possible?

Well, as you have suggested, the fullness of the Gospel had been revealed, but we did not fully understand what we had been given. But we have pondered, prayed and lived what we have received, and we have developed new insights that may have been unknown to the Early Church. We call this “Development of Doctrine”. Frank Sheed put it this way:

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

Thank you, that explains it well, and touches on what I was wondering about. :curtsey:

Steve; I read First Apology, and found it extremely interesting (thank you), I also have the Faith of the Early Fathers set that I’ve started but have not gotten very far into it yet. Did read the Didache.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you, that explains it well, and touches on what I was wondering about. :curtsey:

Steve; I read First Apology, and found it extremely interesting (thank you), I also have the Faith of the Early Fathers set that I’ve started but have not gotten very far into it yet. Did read the Didache.

 

[SteveVH]

In the first few centuries, not much of anything was fleshed out…and yet the faith was delievered once for all to the saints.

How is this possible?

Well, as you have suggested, the fullness of the Gospel had been revealed, but we did not fully understand what we had been given. But we have pondered, prayed and lived what we have received, and we have developed new insights that may have been unknown to the Early Church. We call this “Development of Doctrine”. Frank Sheed put it this way:

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents. So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper. This development in the Church’s understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world. Science, for instance, progresses, but its progress consists to a large extent in discovering and discarding its own errors. The teaching of the Church develops by seeing further truths. At every stage the Church adds something: but not at the cost of discarding anything. At every stage all she teaches is true: at no stage does she teach all that is contained in the Truth.

This development–which we find in theology and nowhere else–combines two things: the work of men’s minds, the over-ruling protection of God. In theology, as in science, progress comes by the minds of men working on what they have been taught: but left to themselves, men may simply make further mistakes. In science they do so. In the teaching of the Church they do not: and the reason is that God intervenes, to prevent the teaching of error by His Church. God’s actions–whether revelation or sacrament or miracle-- are never labour-saving devices: God does not do them to save men the trouble of doing what they can very well do for themselves. In revelation, for instance, God teaches men what they could not (at any rate could not with absolute sureness) find out for themselves: but having given them that, He leaves it to them to meditate upon it and arrive at a clearer understanding of it. He does not do their thinking for them.

Good stuff!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good stuff!

:tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

I’m trying to understand varying Christian views on “Tradition.” Specifically I’m curious as the views of Tradition from the Catholics here, from your POV. I know the “technical” definitions and popular usages and apologetic behind the idea of Tradition, but I’m looking for a practicing layman’s view and explanation.

Would you say that the Traditions that are taught by the formal teachings of the Catholic Church today were taught in the same way back in Acts? Meaning, is it your POV that there are no Traditions today that were added in over time, OR is it your POV that there are some Traditions were indeed added in, but they were added by the guidance of the Spirit in order to effect holiness in the lives of the people of the Church? I would really like to hear your personal perspective.

According to Protestant historian JND Kelly: Tradition is “embedded in all the organs of [the Church’s] institutional life” (Early Christian Doctrines, pg 47-48).

He goes on to say: “in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.”

 

[PRmerger]

From Catholic apologist Mark Shea (bold mine):

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church…**It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. **For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church…The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority…The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

 

[pablope]

Thank you for your explanation and illustration, Randy. I do understand what Tradition is and the argument for it. My questions really fall on the last paragraph of your post, and more specifically the last sentence. Is it your POV that (let’s stick to the RCC for my lack of knowledge; sake) the modern RCC, the modern mass, the modern way of dressing, and the actions of the priests, Bishops, etc… would match the way they would have done things back in Acts? If not, why not?

Was the skeletal structure there and then it was fleshed out by the Holy Spirit via the Magisterium and Popes over time, or was it fully fleshed out then as well as now?

The small t “traditions” are the application of Sacred Tradition…in that the traditions that develop are meant to enhance the teachings contained in Sacred Tradition, not contradict Tradition.

Here is a book that deals with this subject: cfcablaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/love-more.jpg

 

[gmcbroom]

Kliska ,

I think what is most interesting about the Catholic Church is the universally diverse traditions liturgies and theological expression yet United in faith through the 7 mysteries aka sacraments with apostolic succession and unity with the pope. That’s the Catholic Church 23 ritual churches with traditions that change due to geographical locations and customs yet with core traditions that don’t change. It’s the Catholic Churches greatest strength it unity.

 

[DebChris]

Kliska ,

I think what is most interesting about the Catholic Church is the universally diverse traditions liturgies and theological expression yet United in faith through the 7 mysteries aka sacraments with apostolic succession and unity with the pope. That’s the Catholic Church 23 ritual churches with traditions that change due to geographical locations and customs yet with core traditions that don’t change. It’s the Catholic Churches greatest strength it unity.

What I often tell people is that the Catholic Faith is simple. What we believe is summarized in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds. Yet at the same time the depths of its richness can never be reached. It is indeed a Universal Church and we all share the same basic beliefs, yet each of us worships God uniquely in our own way. There is a richness of pious devotions that have developed over time, depending on where we live.
The Liturgy of the Hours follows the Apostle Paul’s exhortation to “pray unceasingly” as the Church sanctifies the hours of the day. The rosary is a way of meditating on the life of Christ through the heart of His mother.
When we are baptized, we are baptized into the Body of Christ, into His Church. We are not alone. It is a shared Faith, and yes, one of unity and shared belief.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To add to Steve’s reference about Jurgens (Great set of books I might add), you can also read The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) by Jaroslav Pelikan.

 

[gmcbroom]

Jaroslav pelikan’s magnum opus on development of Christian doctrine is a masterpiece. I’m sure it was influential in his decision to go from Lutheran scholar to join the Antiochian orthodox. He clearly did his research as his works are heavily annotated with footnotes from sources incredidibly difficult to find. A warning is in order though. Though it is readable it can be quite heavy in theological content and isn’t exactly easy for the layman to read and understand it may take multiple readings to fully digest. Having said that you might like it is tradition and doctrine are of interest to you.

 

[ericc]

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents. So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper. This development in the Church’s understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world. Science, for instance, progresses, but its progress consists to a large extent in discovering and discarding its own errors. The teaching of the Church develops by seeing further truths. At every stage the Church adds something: but not at the cost of discarding anything. At every stage all she teaches is true: at no stage does she teach all that is contained in the Truth.

This development–which we find in theology and nowhere else–combines two things: the work of men’s minds, the over-ruling protection of God. In theology, as in science, progress comes by the minds of men working on what they have been taught: but left to themselves, men may simply make further mistakes. In science they do so. In the teaching of the Church they do not: and the reason is that God intervenes, to prevent the teaching of error by His Church. God’s actions–whether revelation or sacrament or miracle-- are never labour-saving devices: God does not do them to save men the trouble of doing what they can very well do for themselves. In revelation, for instance, God teaches men what they could not (at any rate could not with absolute sureness) find out for themselves: but having given them that, He leaves it to them to meditate upon it and arrive at a clearer understanding of it. He does not do their thinking for them.

I think I better saved up to put this in my library. I have already got the Theology and Sanity.