C
Christian7801
Guest
What are these specific traditions? Your answer did not make any sense to me; please clarify…thanks
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
The canonization of the bible is a Tradition.
It was given to you as an example of Tradition.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
The entire notion of “becoming Christian” itself is a tradition. The very acts of by being baptised into The Church and listening to the apostolic successors is a word of mouth tradtion that has been passed down for 20 centuries by The Church and its membership. None of the OT and NT scriptures were assembled together into one book called “the bible” for 400 years after Christ. No apostle ever saw a bible or the NT. Placing God’s written word into a book called the “The Bible” itself becomes a NEW tradition of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. But the apostolic teachings were traditionally always given ORALLY and not by rote reading of the bible. This new idea of reading the bible to “get saved” is a new tradition that the Protestant’s invented. The Church traditionally only used the bible for its liturgical uses in the context of the mass and by Catholic apologists to defend the faith against heretics.
The entire bible contents of what books belong in the bible (e.g. "the cannon) IS CATHOLIC TRADITION. We did not put all we know about Christ into the bible - that decision to hold some as sacred tradition is itself our “tradition”. The bible itself tells us to conform to the apostolic “Traditions” and NO WHERE tells us to read “the bible”.
James
C
Christian7801
Guest
That still makes no sense because the traditions spoken of by Catholics are ones that Paul referred to as oral, which would be pre Bible, not post. Perhaps you can give a few more examples to help me out here…thanks.
C
Christian7801
Guest
So what are these oral traditions? What are the traditions spoken of by Paul?
I found this in the “NewAdvent” quote: “At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles.”
The question is what traditions exist apart from the written word that were “only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles”? The article give a definition but doesn’t say what these are…does anyone know?
D
davidv
Guest
Paul’s oral teaching predated the Bible, did they not?
If you reject this example, every other one offered will make even less sense.
D
davidv
Guest
They are the “deposit of faith”
The one’s he, and the rest of the apostles taught.
There is no comprehesive list if that is what you are asking.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides this:
P
paul_c
Guest
Lets keep in mind what the NT scriptures are and how they came to be.
The original teaching of the Gospel was 100% oral. As you know, Jesus left no written texts. A few of the apostles ( Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude) wrote letters to individuals or communities to address doctrinal questions. Matthew wrote down the first biography of Jesus. Mark and Luke followed with their own biographies based on the teachings of Peter and Paul. John wrote a 4th biography some time later to fill in the gaps. Luke wrote a second book to tell about the early church. John wrote a book on his apocalyptic revelations. None of these documents was originally designed to be a how to manual on Christianity. They were meant to be tools to supplement oral teaching, which we call Tradition.
As an example, the sacraments are discussed in the Bible, but the procedures used to carry them out are not. That is part of tradition. The fact that the Lord’s day is Sunday is tradition. You won’t find it in the New testament. Most of the detail behind the stations of the cross is Tradition, with only a thumbnail sketch of the happenings being part of scripture. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds are tradition, they are not part of the New Testament. There are countless other examples. Because scripture is a subset of Tradition, there are no conflicts between the two. Everything in scripture is part of Tradition, but there are parts of Tradition that are not covered in scripture.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Well for example, Sacred Tradition includes such things as the prayers and liturgies of The Church. For example the Old Apostles Creed is the precursor to our current Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. Because it was tradition there is not a lot of written evidence to prove this all the way back to apostolic times but we do have artifacts that extend to 2nd century men who were direct successors of the apostle’s or their disciples and the inspiration is clearly apostolic.
The various rites used in the early church are other traditions (e.g. burial rites, ordination rites, early church liturgy). The burial traditions are manifest in the art-forms and markings of early Christian catacombs which prove that the early church believed in purgatory and had reverence for Mary in particular. The traditions of how Judaism was modified and adopted for gentile Christians is part of too and we see this in other works such as the Didache. Again rituals and rites were used by the early Christians and these were mostly propagated by tradition.
The apostolic succession itself is a tradition. There are certainly cases of it mentioned in the bible (e.g. when Mathias replaces Judas and the laying on of hands of other apostolic successors). But we don’t see explicit instructions in the bible for “how to forgive sins” or “how to baptised” or “how to bury the dead” or “how to ordain new apostolic successors” or “how to give 3 different ecclesial-spiritual ranks of bishop, priest and deacon” (which have unique specific authorities and limits). We don’t see any mention in the bible of “what must one do to repent and do penance” - yet we know the early church did these things.
James
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Thanks David!
, which would be pre Bible, not post. Perhaps you can give a few more examples to help me out here…thanks.That is not true. There are a great deal of verifiable historical writings that are also tradition.
Church Fathers Index
The ending of your own version of the Lord’s Prayer is a prize winning example of one that you already accept without question. Yet look at where that ending actually comes from. CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache
The following three articles from my own blog might also help some. Sacred Tradition
S
SteveGC
Guest
Yes. Precisely. That’s what I often try to explain, but I like how you did it here, paul
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Agree. This is where I love to use a medical analogy to show the absurdity of using the bible as a self-help do-it-yourself instruction manual.
I say:
"What person would be so arrogant or irresponsible to go buy an illustrated academic medical book to learn how to perform open heart surgery then go practise it on his mother or other loved family member? What person would operate on his own eyes? It’s insanity.
So by what extension of logic should a person entrust his own salvation on a do-it-yourself approach to cure and operate on one’s own eternal soul or anyone else’s?"
James
S
SteveGC
Guest
Yes, I’ve seen where you’ve used that before, James. It is so effective an analogy, as it cuts through the myth that books really teach, that I am often shocked that most bible-only’s refuse to pay it any mind.
C
Christian7801
Guest
So it is a secret that no one is privy to? Then how do we know it exists and inspired…I don’t think it actually exists, no one seems to be able to produce one specific…I’m confused.
M
mlchance
Guest
Considering at least one specific has been provided, your confusion seems disengenuous at best and your opening question beneath comment.
– Mark L. Chance.
C
Christian7801
Guest
That definitely answers the question…thank you
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You’re confused alright…
Let me suggest this.
Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I defy you to read it (including and especially the footnotes) and then maintain the doctrinal positions that you do right now and the position that the Catholic Church is somehow contradicting scripture or otherwise in error. You’ll probably want to obtain your own hard copy to do this effectively so I suggest that you get one.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket Edition
Feel free to bring any such parts of this to our attention here at CAF (in separate threads of course!) and we’ll be happy to objectively walk that through for you. This will cover the Sacred Tradition quite well.
So…you want answers? There ya go. Now you be honest and do your part. You’re in for the Bible study of your life.
C
Christian7801
Guest
The example given was the Bible; this is not an example nor an answer to the question; we are speaking of Apostolic oral traditions…does the Bible fit that? How can a group speak of Apostolic traditions, which Paul spoke of and not be able to produce a genuine example and than be called disingenuous? Sometimes people do not know the answer and can just say “I don’t know”. This is why I have said it must be secret and hidden since no one seems to be able to give an example(s). IMO
M
mlchance
Guest
Simply. It was the Church, in reference to her Tradition, that determined which of the many contenders for inclusion into the canon of the New Testament had Apostolic authority and which ones did not. Check your Bible’s table of contents. The books listed as part of the New Testament are there because the Church determined they should be.
– Mark L. Chance.
S
steve_b
Guest
said another way,
an example of a modern extra biblical (t)radition is sola scriptura (as used by Protestants). It is not taught by scripture, nor by (T)radition.
- Status