M
mercygate
Guest
What do you mean “honest”? Reformed’s profile lists his religion as “Reformed Protestant.” He just SOUNDS Catholic (sometimes).
- Status
J
javier_29
Guest
mercygate:
He declared himself Catholic in an earlier post…
He declared himself Catholic in an earlier post…
C
Crystal_H
Guest
Here is a link to a little portion of our sacred Tradition…
spurgeon.org/~phil/didache.htm
The link is from people you know… You know the self proclaimed prince of preachers … Cigar smokin ,Spurgeon’s group.
It is our Mass (Catholic) Come and see… Bring the Didache and sit with us… We’ll be nice…
spurgeon.org/~phil/didache.htm
The link is from people you know… You know the self proclaimed prince of preachers … Cigar smokin ,Spurgeon’s group.
It is our Mass (Catholic) Come and see… Bring the Didache and sit with us… We’ll be nice…
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Little ‘c’ catholic
As in, a member of the body of Christ, not necessarily a a member of the Catholic Church.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
We did, but you declined to go read centuries of councils and decrees, etc. And arbitrarily claimed that all the footnotes in the Catechism account for 1% of Tradition. So we cannot provide for someone who makes stuff up like that, and also refuses the answer when given it.
R
Reformed
Guest
I did post that I used to own, read and study the Catholic Cathechism and Companion to the Catholic Catechism. Therefore, I did study a form of Sacred Tradition. I suspect I may understand more Roman Catholicism than your typical craddle catholic. Do you understand I have no issues with Catholic Sacred Traditon when it lines-up with the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures must be the measuring rod to discern all spiritual truth including Catholic Sacred Tradition. I think the Roman Catholic Church has it backwards by using Sacred Tradition to understand the Scriptures. Since Tradition is not considered to be Inspired in the same way as Scripiture, you are using fallible sources to understand revelation from God. You have to embrace that the Bible is God-breathed, giving to us by God and not by the Catholic Church. I honestly believe most Roman Catholics have no idea what the actual contents of Sacred Traditon consist of. I suspect Catholics have great difficulties discerning if something is Sacred Traditon, or just plain tradition. To me, Sacred Tradition just means that you are to believe what the Roman Catholic Church tells you what to believe…with full and final authority. IMO, it’s a way to control the 1 billion people (laity and clergy alike). Even the teaching of the sacraments has an element of control to it. For example, if you leave the Roman Catholic Church you do not have the fullness of the graces such as the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and other Roman Catholic sacraments that are exclusive to Catholic churches only. The Council of Trent is quite clear to those who apostate from Roman Catholicism. It’s quite the religious monopoly (IMO). But what do I know, since most here think I am a heretic?
. I 'm glad I’m a 21st Century Protestant rather than a 16th Century Protestant.http://y2u.co.uk/Humour/Fun_Pics/Funny_Pictures/Funny_Pictures_Animals_1122/Funny_Picture_016.jpg
T
Tomster
Guest
Let us, then, discuss the three foundations of the Reformation, Protestant oral tradition if you will.I did post that I used to own, read and study the Catholic Cathechism and Companion to the Catholic Catechism. Therefore, I did study a form of Sacred Tradition. I suspect I may understand more Roman Catholicism than your typical craddle catholic. Do you understand I have no issues with Catholic Sacred Traditon when it lines-up with the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures must be the measuring rod to discern all spiritual truth including Catholic Sacred Tradition. I think the Roman Catholic Church has it backwards by using Sacred Tradition to understand the Scriptures. Since Tradition is not considered to be Inspired in the same way as Scripiture, you are using fallible sources to understand revelation from God. You have to embrace that the Bible is God-breathed, giving to us by God and not by the Catholic Church. I honestly believe most Roman Catholics have no idea what the actual contents of Sacred Traditon consist of. I suspect Catholics have great difficulties discerning if something is Sacred Traditon, or just plain tradition. To me, Sacred Tradition just means that you are to believe what the Roman Catholic Church tells you what to believe…with full and final authority. IMO, it’s a way to control the 1 billion people (laity and clergy alike). Even the teaching of the sacraments has an element of control to it. For example, if you leave the Roman Catholic Church you do not have the fullness of the graces such as the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and other Roman Catholic sacraments that are exclusive to Catholic churches only. The Council of Trent is quite clear to those who apostate from Roman Catholicism. It’s quite the religious monopoly (IMO). But what do I know, since most here think I am a heretic?
http://y2u.co.uk/Humour/Fun_Pics/Funny_Pictures/Funny_Pictures_Animals_1122/Funny_Picture_016.jpg
The three foundations were determinism, relativism and pantheism, the three greatest and commonest fallacies of thought in human history. These fallacies planted by the Reformers bore deadly fruit.
Sola Fidei/Gratia = Determinism
Sola Scriptura = Relativism
Sola Christus - Pantheism
R
Reformed
Guest
Why don’t you start a 5 solas thread? After-all, we are close to October 31.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, there is no new revelation.
For the Catholic view of Tradition in its latest stage of development I refer you to the document *Dei Verbum *produced by Vatican II, particularly section 2.8. DV defines tradition not as some separate content from Scripture, but as the handing on of divine revelation (i.e., in its NT form, the teachings of Christ and the inspired preaching of the apostles) through the ministry of the Church. This includes the ongoing *interpretation *of divine revelation. This may look to us non-Catholics like “new revelation,” but the Catholic Church does not see it that way. Revelation happened once for all, but the Church continues to develop the implications of that revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Edwin
R
Reformed
Guest
Thanks, and I learned through debating Mormons that Roman Catholic Sacred Traditon is not new revelation (unlike Mormonism). Jude 3 and the Once for all is significant… but I just want access to the Once for All deposit of Faith of a Roman Catholic Christian. I have access to a Roman Catholc cannon of Scripture. But how do I get the rest of their Sacred Tradition? I;ve read through the Catholic Catechism 10 years ago, but that’s just a brief summary of the actual contents of Sacred Tradition.
T
Tomster
Guest
The revelation made to the Apostles, by Christ and by the Holy Spirit whom he sent to teach them “all truth,” was final, definitive. To that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be, added. The duty of the Apostles and their successors was clear: to guard jealously the precious thing committed to their care and to transmit whole and entire to posterity. “Therefore brethren,” says St. Paul, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” “Hold the form of sound words which you have heard of me in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus . . . The things which you have heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.” Hence this important consequence: when the Church teaches that a truth - e.g., the doctrine of original sin - is revealed by God, she does not mean that God has just now revealed it to her; but, in virtue of her office as the infallible custodian and interpreter of God’s word, she declares that this truth is contained, and always has been contained, in the deposit of revelation committed to her care. In other words, when the Church teaches a revealed truth she draws upon the “sources” of revelation.
M
mercygate
Guest
And that is why there is no “list.” Our understanding improves over time: until the last trumpet.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I’m sorry but none of this has to do with your allegation that Tradition cannot be provided. Do we have problems with Catechesis…yes. That’s not what you asked.
Next, the Catholic Church also agrees that the Bible came from God. The earthly Church only receives that revelation, and is not its source, and since you are thorough in knowledge of the Catechism, you know that from CCC#105. God is also the source of Tradition. Anyone who accepts the 27 books of the New Testament as God’s Word also accepts God’s guidance through the Church and Tradition whether they are willing to admit it or not.
Finally, there is no reason to criticize Catholics for going to the Church to learn what Tradition is. Christ ordained it so, and we believe in Him.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Well put. Hopefully will end this thread.
R
Reformed
Guest
This is not the end, but the begining. I already knew that Sacred Tradition is not new revelation. I just want to study as much of what is considered Sacred Tradition. The difficulties seem to be for Roman Cathoics is to determine what is actual Sacred Tradition verses just tradition. Do you think you can supply the deposit of faith that was once for all delievered to the saints to me?
For as an example, the decrees of the Council of Trent is considered Sacred Written Tradition. I can read and study this form of Sacred Written Tradition and compare it with the Scriptures to see if this form of Sacred Tradition is true.
Another example, Mary as co-redeemer is not yet Sacred Tradition, correct?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Let me see if I understood you before I would attempt a ‘yes or no’.
If the teaching becomes dogma or doctrine that Mary is co-redeemer, it does not 'become Sacred Tradition" ‘then’, and 'not be Sacred Tradition ‘yet’.
If it becomes dogma/doctrine, it always was part of Sacred Tradition but the understanding had been both developed through the Holy Spirit **and **(in this case) had come under ‘attack’ (questioning" )such that in order to make it absolutely clear that this was correct teaching, the Spirit would guide the Church to a dogmatic/doctrinal pronouncement of the ‘already’ Sacred Tradition.
So, do I understand that you understand that the teaching (if defined) was always part of Sacred Tradition, but that the dogmatic clarification (necessary because of uncertainty/attack at a given period of time) has not 'yet" been made?
And that the ‘yet’ refers to that question above, and NOT to a misunderstanding that any dogmatic pronouncement would make a ‘new’ teaching that was not ‘yet’ taught?
C
cfrancis
Guest
Why do avoid using this test with the Sacred Tradition you believe: the canon of Scripture.
How do you compare the extra-Biblical declaration of the canon to the Scriptures?
S
sambos671
Guest
I’m not an expert on this but this is my take on it. Sacred Tradition are the accepted beliefs that have been handed down from the Apostles themselves. However, they aren’t usually defined until an issue arises that puts them to question. Then a church council convenes and the specifics get hammered out and writen down. The teachings of the Apostles are evident in the NT but look how the NT church operated a liturgy was already evident and the eucharist was given. So Sacred Tradition passed down through the liturgy and apostolic teaching and was practiced such as the Eucharist. If you read the CCC it states that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition work hand in hand and do not contradict each other. So with this in mind Sacred Tradition is this the Authority of the Church with regards to its teaching. The NT is a result of Church teaching. The Church Councils are also a result of that teaching and most recently we have the Catachisms to specify the Teachings of the Church. However, reading the Catachism you find it is exposition on the Council of Nicea and Constantinople Creeds. So at once there is the same ancient teaching of the church but the growing understanding of what it teaches as it becomes needed.
J
JRKH
Guest
I have not read through all of the replies but thought you might find something useful HERE
I think I understand a bit of your frustration with trying to determine what Exactly comprises “Sacred Tradition” as opposed to “regular traditions”.
Let me place my 2c before you.
In so far as written items that would comprise Sacred Tradition I would say that any texts written by Church leaders before the time of the codification of the Bible would be a part of it. Even some of those documents considered and rejected for inclusion in the Bible can contain certain good elements and can be of help to the magisterium in discerning Truth and avoiding error.
Additionally the writings and letters of the various early Bishops and Saints contain a great deal of information on how the early Church believed and evolved and grew.
The last of the Written parts would be any and all of the documents from the various synods and councils.
These can all be considered as a part of the Deposit of faith upon which our Traditions rest.
As to the unwritten portion of Sacred Tradition, that is much more difficult pin down. Suffice it to say that the oldest and most important of these traditons would be the Church’s reliance on the Guidance of the Holy Spirit and the acceptance of a unified and authoritative Church. For both of these things must predate the written words of the NT and continue on today.
Peace
James
I think I understand a bit of your frustration with trying to determine what Exactly comprises “Sacred Tradition” as opposed to “regular traditions”.
Let me place my 2c before you.
In so far as written items that would comprise Sacred Tradition I would say that any texts written by Church leaders before the time of the codification of the Bible would be a part of it. Even some of those documents considered and rejected for inclusion in the Bible can contain certain good elements and can be of help to the magisterium in discerning Truth and avoiding error.
Additionally the writings and letters of the various early Bishops and Saints contain a great deal of information on how the early Church believed and evolved and grew.
The last of the Written parts would be any and all of the documents from the various synods and councils.
These can all be considered as a part of the Deposit of faith upon which our Traditions rest.
As to the unwritten portion of Sacred Tradition, that is much more difficult pin down. Suffice it to say that the oldest and most important of these traditons would be the Church’s reliance on the Guidance of the Holy Spirit and the acceptance of a unified and authoritative Church. For both of these things must predate the written words of the NT and continue on today.
Peace
James
R
Reformed
Guest
That’s helpful, but when or if I study the Church Fathers, which ones are part of Sacred Tradition, and do I accept all that they write as Sacred Tradition?
- Status