Question for Catholics

[zerinus]

There are sects in Judaism that totally discount anything that is not specifically written in the Scriptures, including, for example, the resurrection of the dead and the afterlife. Because of that, there are books to show what is and is not in there. The same is true with Islam. There is no such thing in the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is, by definition, both Tradition and Scripture.

All religions have sects. Protestantism is a sect of Catholicism. That is one way of looking at it. And they reject Catholic Tradition. So there isn’t that much difference between them from that point of view. Interestingly, Islam has sects, but in the main they agree on the same “tradition” and “scripture,” as far as I know. Their disagreements are over other issues.

The Faith itself is the holder of Tradition. If it is a part of the faith, it is part of Tradition. If it is not, it was not.

That is why there is no real “List of Sacred Traditions” in the faith.

That is why the Catechism is such a good source. It shows different articles of faith and how they are supported in Tradition and in Scripture.

Sacred Tradition are those parts of the Faith that have been taught from the beginning and are not specifically listed out in Scripture.

Thanks for taking the time to reply; but I think we are talking on a different wavelength here. You are not really addressing my original question.

 

[Xavierlives]

What is the reference source for “Sacred Tradition” (as distinct from “Sacred Scripture”)? Is there a book, a website, or some other source I can go to in order to discover what is in it? Suppose I wanted to know if a certain doctrine, teaching, or practice is found in Sacred Tradition or not; where do I go to find that out?

Zerinus,

The Catholics view three basic things as equal: Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the teachers. The Sacred Scripture is the collection of scripture. The Sacred Tradition would be things that are handed down outside of the scripture. An example would be the Papacy.

 

[Xavierlives]

All religions have sects. Protestantism is a sect of Catholicism. That is one way of looking at it. And they reject Catholic Tradition. So there isn’t that much difference between them from that point of view. Interestingly, Islam has sects, but in the main they agree on the same “tradition” and “scripture,” as far as I know. Their disagreements are over other issues.

Thanks for taking the time to reply; but I think we are talking on a different wavelength here. You are not really addressing my original question.

I think they more reject the Magisterium. Many protestant churches still have forms of Sacred Tradition.

They probably don’t hold them as equal to scripture, though.

 

[osddso]

hey now. im gonna chime in and try to help. hope im not repeating anything you already know. all my info is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

“holy tradition transmits in its enitrely the word of God which has been entrust to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy spirit” -81 CCC

if “Holy/Sacred Tradition” is the actions done from the sacred scripture (im sure read you need both, you cant really have one without the other) i looked at the next section which is “Apostolic Tradition” which explains where they get the traditions from.

“Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions born in the church over time” -83 CCC

so is there a website to go to to see why the traditions are done? probably not. youd have to go through various theological courses, learn and understand all the meanings behind the teachings used in the various season of prayer as well as learning the ways the church works its action.

hope i helped

 

[zerinus]

Maybe I am wrong too. The other Catholics are suggesting articles, books, and other references that give you the writings you have requested. Come back later and tell me if they were right.

They haven’t been all that helpful to be honest. One person gave a link to the Vatican website, which wasn’t all that helpful. Another person referred me to the salvationhistory.com website, and suggested I follow up a search term which I did, but again without finding many useful clues. A third person suggested that I study the Fathers. Well I am not altogether unfamiliar with their writings. I have read a couple of books containing selections of their writings, although I have now forgotten much of what I have read. But as far as I know, what the Fathers believed was not always orthodox. Sometimes they held heretical views. So I don’t see how studying them will necessarily lead me to an understanding of Sacred Tradition which is supposed to be equal to Sacred Scripture in determining Catholic Doctrine. Actually, several weeks before posting this question here, I had posted the same question on the “Ask and Apologist” forum; but got no reply! I was hoping that one of their experts would give me an authoritative reply; but nobody volunteered! Maybe that is the reason: the question doesn’t really have an answer.

As for the Muslim and Jewish way of doing things, that is them. If their traditions are subject to their Scriptures, and they acknowledge the possibility of conflict, then that’s too bad for them.

Our Tradition supports Scripture, our Scripture supports Tradition. There is never a conflict. Personally, I hold that the Scripture alone is always inadequate to resolve dioctrinal controversy. You talk about Tradition being vague, but it brings more light to determine by Tradition that the Apostolic Church had formal, liturgical worship with an episcopal hierarchy, than it is to consult the Scripture on the same subjects. The Scriptures don’t give a program of what the Sunday worship, a wedding, or a funeral was like. Further, the Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversies. Why? They are ambiguous (taken alone) regarding many other important matters. When there is a doctrinal dispute about Scripture, Tradition steps in to settle the question.

The Christians who say that Scripture is the sole authority of faith and practice inevitably suffer from doctrinal splits and divisions. The people don’t agree about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, marriage and remarriage, and other matters so serious that it means you can’t go to church together unless you are agreed. And they all read the same Bible. They need Tradition. They need to have a “novelty killer”.

When sects split off from the Catholic Church it usually starts when somebody creates a new and exciting interpretation of Scripture unsupported by Tradition. Novelty is the death of an Apostolic Church, and Tradition is the death of novelty. If Tradition is vague by itself, so is Scripture. Neither operates properly without the other. History shows that schism is inevitable where the Christian Scriptures are extrapolated from the Tradition that gave them birth.

I was not criticizing Sacred Tradition. I was merely expressing puzzlement at how elusive and indeterminate it can be—and yet be regarded by Catholics to be of equal standing with Scripture in determining Church doctrine.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dei Verbo resource by Rebecca, your Catholic Catechism.

Essentially, protestants do not accept authority from the Catholic church although as some said, accept many teachings, some sacraments, the holiday seasons, some saints.

Catholics who are devout *can immediately pick up a single phrase in a teaching from *Scripture or a theology…that just doesn’t sound right. We do research and find out our reservations were valid…

The Sacred Tradition is the transmission of faith from the Apostles through their successors that involves both Scripture and church practices…such as it is a grave sin to miss Mass on Sunday…or we celebrate significant events of Our Lord and the saints on certain days…that can be changed to fit the needs of the people. There is the Big Tradition, which is the one you ask, and then there are the small ecclesia traditions found in references from early church fathers and writers to regions of the world that have different practices than that here in the USA.

But the most important aspect of Sacred Tradition is that it is understanding God and His Word Made Flesh in whole with the Same Spirit then as today for the Whole Church, not some regions or parts…the Whole of the Word of God for the Whole fo the Universal Church…for all peoples, past, present and futures…mystiological…and not taking out parts or bits out of context, divorced from their original intent of author, message and same Spirit…it is the totality of Jesus with the totality of humanity…

And this totality also represents the totality of who we are—called to be part of all humanity, the Jesus Christ through His Bridge, the Church, for all people. He called us to be One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic…universal. This work of Sacred Tradition is expansive and continual because the church is constantly inculturating with new people…and these people are also sharing with us new charisms of the one same God…same message, same God…the same continuity since the beginning of man to God.

We study God’s Eternal Word, Scripture in light of the teachings of the Church’s Sacred Tradition which draws from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ to His apostles down to our bishops today. There is in this the work of enfleshing the Word of God to His people and building the structure of the Church His Bride, for His people. Constantly moving forward to the Lord inspite of individual/subculture/particular dioceses’ failures…Christ sustains the Church, not us.

You have a number of good references there. Good to read Church Fathers of different cultures…but it is a grace …

 

[cothrige]

I was not criticizing Sacred Tradition. I was merely expressing puzzlement at how elusive and indeterminate it can be—and yet be regarded by Catholics to be of equal standing with Scripture in determining Church doctrine.

If I may jump in here, I think you may be coming at this from slightly the wrong angle. Sacred Tradition, as I understand it, is nothing more than the faith received and protected by the Church. It is the apostolic teaching in its entirety, some of which was written down by the authors of divine scripture and some only put into writing at later times as needed. However, it was all Sacred Tradition, whether it was taught by word of mouth or by written letter.

Now, is it vague? Sure. But, so is the Bible, at least in many ways. But, is it indeterminate? No, I wouldn’t say so. For instance, is it Sacred Tradition to have women priests? No. How do we know this? Because it is not positively received as truth and has not been held by the Church throughout history. Sacred Tradition does not get created at some point, but is handed down from the beginning. Understanding that we can see very easily what is part of Sacred Tradition and what isn’t. Just look at the life of the Church and the faith she holds, and that will reveal Sacred Tradition. It is self affirming.

If you want to read what is Sacred Tradition then read the documents of the Church. This would be the Bible, the conciliar documents, papal writings and and the Early Church Fathers. It should be remembered though that only certain papal documents have been accepted by the Church as reflective of Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers are really only historic evidence of the life of the Church, and are not themselves necessarily products of the universal magesterium, and as such are really more for support.

It is also worth remembering that in the Church many teachings were not found in writing until a denial forced such to be done. It was never in the mind of the Church to sit down and work up all the things that are Sacred Tradition and have a definitive list. We don’t work that way. If somebody decided to deny a teaching which had been historically held then the Church would respond with a definitive pronouncement in order to end the question, using the ECFs, history, practice, liturgy, prayers and so on as proofs and support. That is why the books of the Bible don’t get listed for many centuries. Nobody argued about it and so why write it down. And yet the books of the bible are themselves proof of the existence of Sacred Tradition in that there was no sacred table of contents. Without Tradition nobody could know which book was in and which was out, and I don’t doubt you are well aware of the many books and letters floating around in the early centuries claiming to be scriptural.

 

[PJM]

Try these:

www.experiencefestival.val.com/_roman_catholic_sacred_tradition

www.catholicplanet.com

www.catholicapologetics.net

www.punpages.unh.edu

Let me know what you find.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[twopekinguys]

They haven’t been all that helpful to be honest. One person gave a link to the Vatican website, which wasn’t all that helpful. Another person referred me to the salvationhistory.com website, and suggested I follow up a search term which I did, but again without finding many useful clues. A third person suggested that I study the Fathers. Well I am not altogether unfamiliar with their writings. I have read a couple of books containing selections of their writings, although I have now forgotten much of what I have read. But as far as I know, what the Fathers believed was not always orthodox. Sometimes they held heretical views. So I don’t see how studying them will necessarily lead me to an understanding of Sacred Tradition which is supposed to be equal to Sacred Scripture in determining Catholic Doctrine. Actually, several weeks before posting this question here, I had posted the same question on the “Ask and Apologist” forum; but got no reply! I was hoping that one of their experts would give me an authoritative reply; but nobody volunteered! Maybe that is the reason: the question doesn’t really have an answer.

I find your approach to this quite entertaining given what you told a poster when he asked a similar question of the mormon church on another thread.
zerinus;6154675:

I have no idea where they are recorded. Wherever it is, it obviously cannot be revealed because it is not meant public consumption; so who cares where it is recorded? And what difference does it make to you to know?

The difference here of course is that many people have given you places to check for the information.

I was not criticizing Sacred Tradition. I was merely expressing puzzlement at how elusive and indeterminate it can be—and yet be regarded by Catholics to be of equal standing with Scripture in determining Church doctrine.

 

[twopekinguys]

They haven’t been all that helpful to be honest. One person gave a link to the Vatican website, which wasn’t all that helpful. Another person referred me to the salvationhistory.com website, and suggested I follow up a search term which I did, but again without finding many useful clues. A third person suggested that I study the Fathers. Well I am not altogether unfamiliar with their writings. I have read a couple of books containing selections of their writings, although I have now forgotten much of what I have read. But as far as I know, what the Fathers believed was not always orthodox. Sometimes they held heretical views. So I don’t see how studying them will necessarily lead me to an understanding of Sacred Tradition which is supposed to be equal to Sacred Scripture in determining Catholic Doctrine. Actually, several weeks before posting this question here, I had posted the same question on the “Ask and Apologist” forum; but got no reply! I was hoping that one of their experts would give me an authoritative reply; but nobody volunteered! Maybe that is the reason: the question doesn’t really have an answer.

I was not criticizing Sacred Tradition. I was merely expressing puzzlement at how elusive and indeterminate it can be—and yet be regarded by Catholics to be of equal standing with Scripture in determining Church doctrine.

I find this entertaining, considering your response given to a poster on another thread who offered a similar question about the mormons.

I have no idea where they are recorded. Wherever it is, it obviously cannot be revealed because it is not meant public consumption; so who cares where it is recorded? And what difference does it make to you to know?

The difference of course is that Catholics are trying to provide you with information.

 

[KathleenGee]

In reflection of the previous post, Let us pray…for the Mormons…please let us pray…for them…God bless them…many good things they do…

 

[osddso]

hey now. im gonna chime in and try to help. hope im not repeating anything you already know. all my info is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

“holy tradition transmits in its enitrely the word of God which has been entrust to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy spirit” -81 CCC

if “Holy/Sacred Tradition” is the actions done from the sacred scripture (im sure read you need both, you cant really have one without the other) i looked at the next section which is “Apostolic Tradition” which explains where they get the traditions from.

“Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions born in the church over time” -83 CCC

so is there a website to go to to see why the traditions are done? probably not. youd have to go through various theological courses, learn and understand all the meanings behind the teachings used in the various season of prayer as well as learning the ways the church works its action.

hope i helped

if your that hard pressed for an answer go ask a priest.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by zerinus
They haven’t been all that helpful to be honest. One person gave a link to the Vatican website, which wasn’t all that helpful. Another person referred me to the salvationhistory.com website, and suggested I follow up a search term which I did, but again without finding many useful clues. A third person suggested that I study the Fathers. Well I am not altogether unfamiliar with their writings. I have read a couple of books containing selections of their writings, although I have now forgotten much of what I have read. But as far as I know, what the Fathers believed was not always orthodox. Sometimes they held heretical views. So I don’t see how studying them will necessarily lead me to an understanding of Sacred Tradition which is supposed to be equal to Sacred Scripture in determining Catholic Doctrine. Actually, several weeks before posting this question here, I had posted the same question on the “Ask and Apologist” forum; but got no reply! I was hoping that one of their experts would give me an authoritative reply; but nobody volunteered! Maybe that is the reason: the question doesn’t really have an answer.

I was not criticizing Sacred Tradition. I was merely expressing puzzlement at how elusive and indeterminate it can be—and yet be regarded by Catholics to be of equal standing with Scripture in determining Church doctrine.

GOOGLE “history of Catholic Sacred Tradition”

Perhaps this insite may help?

Sacred Traition always has historical roots in acual CC Practice.

ST is the first step to Doctrine,

Which is the second step to Dogma

The FINAL step is beleif, acceptance and application into our lifes:thumbsup:

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[TheosisM]

I see that others have addressed how Catholics view Sacred Tradition. I probably will repeat what has already been said, however I would like to be clear on how Catholics view Sacred Tradition, which is primarily what the OP is about (first you have to know what it is before you can ask where it is).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a decent overview of what Sacred Tradition is, what Sacred Scripture is, and the relationship between the two. It is important to realize that there is a difference between “Sacred Tradition” and “traditions” (with a small “t”, and which the Catechism terms “ecclesial traditions”):

**"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.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium."**

So, things like the rosary, how many candles to put around the altar, Gregorian Chant, Christmas trees, genuflecting before the tabernacle, the sign of the cross, etc. are “traditions” and are not part of what is Sacred Tradition. This is important, because when many non-Catholics attempt to discuss Sacred Tradition, they are typically thinking about “ecclesial traditions” and not “Sacred Tradition”.

More from the Catechism:

**"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 "**

Sacred Tradition being defined as “transmit[ting] in its entirety the Word of God…” is important. I believe that the Orthodox Church defines this in an even better way than the Catholic Church. While Catholics typically see Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as two separate entities that interact, Orthodox see Sacred Scripture as a subset of Sacred Tradition, i.e. the written form of Sacred Tradition.

The early Christians did not have a Bible to refer to. Nor was there a Catechism, or list of beliefs. Instead, they were taught by authorized leaders, and still had the same truths found in the Bible. This is Sacred Tradition-the transmission in its entirety the Word of God. The Catechism further states-"This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”"

Tradition is seen as a “living” transmission. And this brings me really to the OP. There is no “list” or “book” of Sacred Tradition. It is found in the life of the Church. As someone previously mentioned, there is no division of doctrines found in Tradition versus doctrines found in the Bible. The two are firmly tied together (and in Orthodoxy, Scripture is simply the written form of Tradition), and doctrines found in Scripture may be made more explicit in Tradition. One example of this is Sunday worship. Hints of this can be found in the Bible (Christians gathering to do certain things on the first day of the week), yet there is simply no “Christians gather to worship every week on Sundays” commandment. Instead, we believe that this is part of Sacred Tradition, and is evidenced in the life of the Church, as a “living transmission”. The early Christians worshipped on Sundays, and so do we, yet Scripture doesn’t say this explicitly. Another example is the Biblical Canon. The Bible does not tell us which books are in the canon. Instead, we believe that the Canon was preserved throughout Christian history, through the Church.

So, it is important to realize that there is simply no list or book of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not the same as the various ecclesial traditions. Sacred Tradition can find its way into “official” documents, such as those from Ecumenical Councils. It may also be helpful to read the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation-Dei Verbum for more information on this subject.

 

[rdscheirer]

In one of Paul’s letters (I don’t memorize chapter and verse) he says “Remember the Scripture and Tradition we have taught you.” I think that he meant the Scripture being the Jewish writings and Tradition being the new Covenant in Christ- still not published in writing during his lifetime- and part of the Tradition being published in the Gospels later. Certainly the entirety of what Christ said and taught over three years of evangelizing cannot be contained in those four books. Tradition comes from the Apostles who were there, taught the people, and the people continued on until someone wrote down the Gospels. Tradition is what the Apostles did that was not written down in the Gospels. Alot of what the Early Church Fathers talk about in their writings is not in the Gospels either- but they were the disciples of the Apostles.

“If you are a student of history you cannot be anything but Catholic.”
Chesterton( I think)

 

[PJM]

=rdscheirer;6161230]In one of Paul’s letters (I don’t memorize chapter and verse) he says “Remember the Scripture and Tradition we have taught you.” I think that he meant the Scripture being the Jewish writings and Tradition being the new Covenant in Christ- still not published in writing during his lifetime- and part of the Tradition being published in the Gospels later. Certainly the entirety of what Christ said and taught over three years of evangelizing cannot be contained in those four books. Tradition comes from the Apostles who were there, taught the people, and the people continued on until someone wrote down the Gospels. Tradition is what the Apostles did that was not written down in the Gospels. Alot of what the Early Church Fathers talk about in their writings is not in the Gospels either- but they were the disciples of the Apostles.

“If you are a student of history you cannot be anything but Catholic.”
Chesterton( I think)

FYI…

2Thes.2: 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”
.
2Thes.3: 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.”

 

[KathleenGee]

How the two work together is the Holy Spirit…the same Holy Spirit of times past as of today.

The Church does not draw on books or traditions in themselves that have no life. It is the transmission of faith through the Holy Spirit, that helped the Apostles preach in the Spirit of God.

There are people on CAF who are oppositional to the Catholic Church and when they draw on sources, it is not in the same Spirit and perspective and always is lacking.

If you attend a Catholic Mass, and then read ancient liturgies of times past, you will experience or atleast observe the same spirit, tone and perspective…

Sacred Tradition with Sacred Scripture are united…understanding the Word of God and bearing the same fruit of unity, holiness, Apostolic and universal in its message to today, to times past, and to the future.