S
sambos671
Guest
I think only when they don’t contradict the teachings specified by the Church. They are under the same authority.
- Status
R
Reformed
Guest
Quite convenient claim, don’t you say? I would like to watch a debate between Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers since they both claim apostolic authority.
J
JRKH
Guest
Others may be able to answer better but I’ll give it a shot.
First I’ll suggest that if you read the early Church Fathers, or books about them, get your books from a Catholic source. Since your interest is in Sacred Tradition this will assure that you get the right slant from the author.
Secondly, as to accepting everything they say as Sacred Tradition, I don’t know. The thing to remember is that all of these documents and their contents can have different meanings and import depending upon the era and the issues of the times. What they provide is, not just teachings or ideas, but a sense of what and how doctrine developed over time.
The magisterium, that body of learned theologens and historians and socioligists, use all of the documents I described, along with the Holy Bible, and the Prayerful Guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine teachings for todays Christian.
What I am trying to say is that, while the ECF’s and the Church Doctors certainly have added to our Traditions and Understandings, it is necessary to recognize that not everything in their writings may be applicable to today, or found it’s way into official Catholic Teachings. That is the caveat I would add.
Peace
James
B
BlestOne
Guest
Reformed… here are 2 really good websites you might enjoy"
churchtimeline.com/
spurgeon.org/~phil/fathers.htm
R
Reformed
Guest
Thank you for the sources. I am familar with spurgeon.org but not the other site. And yes…Church History is very important to study and understand. I’m surprised you can handle Charles Spurgeon in regards to Roman Catholicism. Have you read what he wrote about Roman Catholicism that can probably be found on that site?
Here is a link to the creeds and confessions on that same site.
spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The Catechism remains the best summary of Tradition, but you choose to reject that as a resource, so we move on…
Sacred Tradition pertains to faith and morals. Small “t” tradition refers to disciplinary or customary teachings. If you want to know the stage of development of any doctrine of Tradition, the best source is probably Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
And please do not project your difficulty in understanding this onto Catholics who do not have such difficulty.
R
Reformed
Guest
I’ve never ignored the Catechism of the Catholic Church because i used to own one and read it. I even tried to use the Companion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church too. If Catholics were honest, you guys have difficulites even trying to interpert the Catechism…thus you have a companion to tell you what the Catechism is saying or trying to say. Heck, Roman Catholicism is so confused with all these sources, it almost seems in the CC that people will be saved apart from faith in Christ.
M
mercygate
Guest
Huh? The Companion to the Catechism provides more extensive quotations and cross references to the resources cited in the notes of the *Catechism. *It’s not a gloss.
N
ncgolf
Guest
You are talking to people who have so much faith in Christ that they actually do what He commanded … John 6:53-56 …“Amen, Amen I say to you , unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
You want faith … then believe what you cannot see.
R
Reformed
Guest
According to the Catholic Catechism, what happens to the Hindu, Muslum, and other non-Christian who worships god?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So Reformed, may I ask a question?
You started this thread because you said you were confused.
You got answers. You don’t accept them.
Now you say Catholics are the confused ones.
May I ask how a person who has admitted that he has no grasp of the subject can say that “all you Catholics” are confused on the issue?
You started this thread because you said you were confused.
You got answers. You don’t accept them.
Now you say Catholics are the confused ones.
May I ask how a person who has admitted that he has no grasp of the subject can say that “all you Catholics” are confused on the issue?
U
Usagi
Guest
Reformed,
The reason people keep pointing you at the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that it is a recent and fairly comprehensive compilation of the Church’s teachings and understandings.
If you want to know what Catholics have gotten out of Sacred Tradition that is not necessarily explicit in Scripture, look there.
If you actually want all of the written sources of Sacred Tradition, that is something not reducible to a simple list or source. It includes two thousand years of letters, sermons, hymns, liturgies, and God only knows (probably literally) what else. Further, since those sources are not inspired the way Scripture is, you can’t take every detail as eternal Sacred Tradition. That’s why we have Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium – God’s written Word, the living experience of the Church throughout the centuries, and a Spirit-guided teaching authority that continues into the present.
You already know some of the more prominent bits that the Church has passed down through time…
There’s a lot of stuff, but the actual key points of what we believe and practice can be taught to a grade-schooler.
If you want to read all the sources of Sacred Tradition, then it’s going to be a long slog, and there’s no single place we can point to. Read all the Fathers, paying attention to where they agree and where they differ. Read the various liturgies to see how Christians have worshipped through the centuries. Read the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the popes, other bishops, and orthodox theologians. Notice which ideas the Church takes up and eventually defines as dogma, and which linger as opinions only and may eventually be overturned.
If you want a concise look at what we got from all those sources, then read the CCC and pay attention to the footnotes. Check those individual sources if you want primary-source data.
That’s where I think you’re being a little disingenous here, Reformed. Yes, if someone were to want to comb through every possible source of Sacred Tradition, it would be a daunting task if it’s even possible. That’s why it’s Tradition, even when written down, and not additional books of Scripture – it’s “what was passed on” in myriad little ways, and we have to glean it from mentions and inferences in many places. But if you just want the teachings of the Church, including those not found explicitly in Scripture (which your request for a simple list seems to imply), then the CCC is about the best source you could ask for. It even cites the older sources so you can then track them down.
Usagi
The reason people keep pointing you at the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that it is a recent and fairly comprehensive compilation of the Church’s teachings and understandings.
If you want to know what Catholics have gotten out of Sacred Tradition that is not necessarily explicit in Scripture, look there.
If you actually want all of the written sources of Sacred Tradition, that is something not reducible to a simple list or source. It includes two thousand years of letters, sermons, hymns, liturgies, and God only knows (probably literally) what else. Further, since those sources are not inspired the way Scripture is, you can’t take every detail as eternal Sacred Tradition. That’s why we have Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium – God’s written Word, the living experience of the Church throughout the centuries, and a Spirit-guided teaching authority that continues into the present.
You already know some of the more prominent bits that the Church has passed down through time…
- The list of writings that are God-breathed
- The decisions of councils, further specifying under the Spirit’s guidance what are acceptable parameters of Christian belief
- The basic structure of the Mass and other sacramental celebrations, including what they mean and what parts are essential vs. variable in different times and places
- That Mary had no other children, is rightly called mother of God because of the status of her Son, was preserved from sin from conception, and was assumed into heaven at the end of her life
- That the Church is led by its bishops under the overall leadership of the bishop of Rome, with priests and deacons assisting them
There’s a lot of stuff, but the actual key points of what we believe and practice can be taught to a grade-schooler.
If you want to read all the sources of Sacred Tradition, then it’s going to be a long slog, and there’s no single place we can point to. Read all the Fathers, paying attention to where they agree and where they differ. Read the various liturgies to see how Christians have worshipped through the centuries. Read the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the popes, other bishops, and orthodox theologians. Notice which ideas the Church takes up and eventually defines as dogma, and which linger as opinions only and may eventually be overturned.
If you want a concise look at what we got from all those sources, then read the CCC and pay attention to the footnotes. Check those individual sources if you want primary-source data.
That’s where I think you’re being a little disingenous here, Reformed. Yes, if someone were to want to comb through every possible source of Sacred Tradition, it would be a daunting task if it’s even possible. That’s why it’s Tradition, even when written down, and not additional books of Scripture – it’s “what was passed on” in myriad little ways, and we have to glean it from mentions and inferences in many places. But if you just want the teachings of the Church, including those not found explicitly in Scripture (which your request for a simple list seems to imply), then the CCC is about the best source you could ask for. It even cites the older sources so you can then track them down.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
If they have rejected Christ, they go to Hell.
If they are simply unaware of the Christian message, but their minds and hearts are such (as known only to God) that they would flock to Christ if they knew of Him and His necessity, then we hope that God will save them by His own means, since He is both just and merciful.
In no case is anyone actually saved by the beliefs or practices of another religion, but it is possible that some might be saved in spite of such beliefs and practices, through God’s grace won for us by Christ on the cross (even if they do not know of Him by name).
Usagi
J
JRKH
Guest
You can post so many sincere and insightful things and then you turn around and post this astonishing piece of nonsense.
Just why would anyone choose to be a catholic and not believe in Christ and His promises? Faith in Christ AND His promises AND his Church are absolutely central and essential to every serious catholic’s life.
As to the Catachism and the companion to the Catachism, and the supposed confusion therein, are there not protestant books, commentaries, videos and DVDs galore all providing explanations and teachings gleaned from the Bible? Do all of these things together remove the confusion of Scripture? Given the number of divergent faith communities, I think not.
It seems a bit unfair to refer to Catholicism as confused when you are still trying to learn about it.
Peace
James
N
novaslasher
Guest
I understand your frustration in trying to pin down the content of Sacred Tradition. It sounds like what would most appeal to you would be a list of teachings that comprise Sacred Tradition as handed down from the Apostles; unfortunately you won’t find anything like this.
I’m also trying to get a better understanding of Sacred Tradition. I’m taking an intro graduate Catholic theology course at Christendom College and one of the lectures dealt with Tradition. According to our professor, Sacred Tradition complements Sacred Scripture and is coequal to Scripture. Tradition was the form in which the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles were handed down in the early Church before the Scriptures were completed and the canon was sealed. The Church Fathers do give an indication of the teachings of Tradition, but their combined written teachings are not the same thing as Tradition. Tradition is transmitted through the Magisterium and is not necessarily found in the individual teachings of each Church Father. The Fathers are not considered infallible and they can err (for example look at some of the writings of Origen). But when the Fathers agree on a teaching, it is a sign that they are teaching from Tradition.
There is a debate within Catholic theological circles about whether the entire content of Sacred Tradition is found within Sacred Scripture. Some theologians hold that there exists a subset of Sacred Tradition called constitutive Tradition. Constitutive tradition is extra-scriptural doctrines with no clear foundation in Scripture. Those who hold this view believe that some teachings of Tradition (like the canon of Scripture) are not in Scripture. A key point is that even though constitutive Tradition is extra-Scriptural, it does not contradict Sacred Scripture.
Other theologians believe that constitutive Tradition does not exist. Instead they believe that all Catholic teachings have at least a starting point within Scripture. Those who hold this view believe that Sacred Tradition is more akin to the authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Magisterium (those theologians who support constitutive Tradition also believe Tradition plays a large role in giving authentic interpretation to Scripture).
I’ll leave out the details of the debate between the two camps (such as whether the canon of Scripture is a true element of constitutive Tradition).
No matter which view is correct, Tradition should be viewed as an organic embodiment of the living teachings of Christ in the Church. It provides an authentic interpretation of the Scriptures and the living manifestation of those teachings (such as the Sacraments and liturgy). Hence you won’t find a laundry list of Traditions.
A good scholarly work to look at is “Tradition and Traditions” by Yves Congar. I’m reading through that one right now.
I’m also trying to get a better understanding of Sacred Tradition. I’m taking an intro graduate Catholic theology course at Christendom College and one of the lectures dealt with Tradition. According to our professor, Sacred Tradition complements Sacred Scripture and is coequal to Scripture. Tradition was the form in which the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles were handed down in the early Church before the Scriptures were completed and the canon was sealed. The Church Fathers do give an indication of the teachings of Tradition, but their combined written teachings are not the same thing as Tradition. Tradition is transmitted through the Magisterium and is not necessarily found in the individual teachings of each Church Father. The Fathers are not considered infallible and they can err (for example look at some of the writings of Origen). But when the Fathers agree on a teaching, it is a sign that they are teaching from Tradition.
There is a debate within Catholic theological circles about whether the entire content of Sacred Tradition is found within Sacred Scripture. Some theologians hold that there exists a subset of Sacred Tradition called constitutive Tradition. Constitutive tradition is extra-scriptural doctrines with no clear foundation in Scripture. Those who hold this view believe that some teachings of Tradition (like the canon of Scripture) are not in Scripture. A key point is that even though constitutive Tradition is extra-Scriptural, it does not contradict Sacred Scripture.
Other theologians believe that constitutive Tradition does not exist. Instead they believe that all Catholic teachings have at least a starting point within Scripture. Those who hold this view believe that Sacred Tradition is more akin to the authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Magisterium (those theologians who support constitutive Tradition also believe Tradition plays a large role in giving authentic interpretation to Scripture).
I’ll leave out the details of the debate between the two camps (such as whether the canon of Scripture is a true element of constitutive Tradition).
No matter which view is correct, Tradition should be viewed as an organic embodiment of the living teachings of Christ in the Church. It provides an authentic interpretation of the Scriptures and the living manifestation of those teachings (such as the Sacraments and liturgy). Hence you won’t find a laundry list of Traditions.
A good scholarly work to look at is “Tradition and Traditions” by Yves Congar. I’m reading through that one right now.
S
sambos671
Guest
I don’t think the CCC is confused or that the church is. The CCC must be taken in light of 2,000 years of Christianity. I’ve read it and love how it puts together things Ireaneus, Augustine, Jerome, and others state. Its great studing the 1st 7 eccuminical councils then reading the CCC. It really puts Catholic theology into perspective. Also a good understanding of Aquinas helps since he seems to be the building block of many thoughts in the CCC. Imagine working through that vast amount of materials.
R
Reformed
Guest
Do you understand how unbiblical this position is. If I understand the Roman Catholic position, you are changing the great good news of God (gospel of God’s grace) into terrible bad condemning news. Are you saying that a sinner becomes accountable and condemned once they are preached the good news and reject it? Do you see what happens when you leave Sola Scriptura, because the gospel changes from great news to accountable condemning news. Please correct my understanding if I am wrong. My Scriptural proof is Roman chapter 1, chapter 2, and John 3. I’ll let you guys study the issues before I share what Scripture reveals on this important issue. Your last paragraph is my hope for the remnant within the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.hemmy.net/images/animals/dogweirdcostume06.jpg
Don’t forget October 31.
C
cfrancis
Guest
If a sinner hears the Gospel and rejects it, what do you believe happens to that sinner?
R
Reformed
Guest
Please try reading the entire chapter of John 3 and you tell me. I own a dear Basset Hound I call Rufus. The picture above is not my dog.
S
sambos671
Guest
Too true. The foundation of Protestant belief is you must be saved through faith alone in Jesus alone. To reject Jesus - his gospel is rejection of God himself and subjectst the person to hell.
- Status