Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[po18guy]

God created Adam and Eve and God said it is very good!

Sin entered this world through one act of disobedience, our federal head and representative. Blame it on Adam and Eve and not God if you want a scapegoat. . Therer is another scapegoat you know.

I am not blaming God, Who is blameless! I am trying to respond to pretzel logic here.

 

[Reformed]

I’ll follow you! And, forget the bible for now! I’ll read it later. I had my eyes on Jesus Christ this morning. Is He greater than the bible or not? I must ask.

Well, it depends if your eyes are on the biblical Jesus Christ. For we know there are many who claims to be the Christ. What happens if your eyes are on the Mormon Jesus? Or how about the Hindu Jesus. Or how about the Islamic Jesus? If your eyes are not on the biblical Jesus, than you are probably worshipping an idol created in your own mind.

 

[cfrancis]

LOL… you guys don’t see God as completely sovereign, do you? Who enabled the inventor to invent the printing press in the first place? Are you guys implying that the laity should have never had access to the Bible in their own language in the first place?

I wish your history was better than your deplorable rhetoric. The laity had the Bible in their own tongue before the printing press.
Even so, the first Bible off the printing press was a German translation of the Vulgate.

 

[cfrancis]

Well, it depends if your eyes are on the biblical Jesus Christ. For we know there are many who claims to be the Christ. What happens if your eyes are on the Mormon Jesus? Or how about the Hindu Jesus. Or how about the Islamic Jesus? If your eyes are not on the biblical Jesus, than you are probably worshipping an idol created in your own mind.

I figured you’d be out of spear by now…not so I see. Such a shame.

 

[po18guy]

Well, it depends if your eyes are on the biblical Jesus Christ. For we know there are many who claims to be the Christ. What happens if your eyes are on the Mormon Jesus? Or how about the Hindu Jesus. Or how about the Islamic Jesus? If your eyes are not on the biblical Jesus, than you are probably worshipping an idol created in your own mind.

You are imploding!!! I went to the Church that gave you the bible. Amidst the praise and incense smoke, there was Christ, Body Blood, Soul and Divinity. If you only knew…

 

[mercygate]

I wish your history was better than your deplorable rhetoric. The laity had the Bible in their own tongue before the printing press.
Even so, the first Bible off the printing press was a German translation of the Vulgate.

Not it wasn’t. It was the Latin Vulgate.

 

[sambos671]

LOL… you guys don’t see God as completely sovereign, do you? Who enabled the inventor to invent the printing press in the first place? Are you guys implying that the laity should have never had access to the Bible in their own language in the first place?

What are you talking about? In the ancient world most people were illiterate and didn’t have pocket Gideons. Christianity practice through liturgy which caused memorization of scripture orally and in community. You find Martin Luther was a Lawyer then a priest. He was educated you find the same thing with Calvin. Once the printing press enable every one a translation of scripture those who could read in their own tounge did so and made their own decision. Before that the masses relied on the liturgy unless they were educated. Education of Europe happened because of the efforts of Charlemagne and others. The nobles were educated and could read both latin and their regional tongue. So by the time of the reformation the printing press did two things allowed those the ability to afford a bible who were educated and spured education of people who generally could not read.

 

[cfrancis]

Not it wasn’t. It was the Latin Vulgate.

You’re right - I sit corrected!

 

[Reformed]

I am closing my participation on this thread in light of this wonderful posting below.

Originally Posted by novaslasher
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

 

[twb1621]

I’m sure there is some Sacred Tradition that I can embrace as truth. However, I need to read and study the sources first. Sacred Tradition can be truth when it lines up with the Holy Scriptures. Heck, I posted the Apostle’s Creed a few times… because I am catholic.

Reformed, perhaps this may help a bit…
Sacred Tradition is the sum of revealed doctrine which has not been committed to Sacred Scripture (though it may have appeared in uninspired writing) but which has been handed down by a series of legitimate shepherds of the church from age to age. As revelation, it must have come to the Apostles directly from the lips of Christ or been handed down by the Apostles at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter,” St. Paul told the Thessalonians. (2 Thess. 2:15, RSV)

“The word tradition is taken from the Latin word “tradere”- to hand down, to pass on. In this case it refers to a “handing down” of God’s revealed word from apostolic times to our own day. If we would take the word tradition in the broad sense, we could say that the Catholic Church derives it’s doctrines from tradition alone, understanding thereby the body of revealed truth (written & unwritten) handed down from the apostles. St. Paul seemed to understand it in this way when he wrote to Timothy to “hold to traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our letter” (2 Thes. 2:14). Even though a great part of that tradition has been committed to writing and is found in the inspired books of the Scriptures, the Catholic Church looks upon Tradition and Scripture, not as two separate sources of revelation, but as two different means of transmission of God’s revelation, forming a single deposit of faith. The Bible, then, is a part of Tradition, along with the unwritten instruction received from Christ and handed down by the apostles and their successors. Some writers refer to the revealed doctrines (written & unwritten) handed down by the apostles and their successors as the passive aspect of Tradition, and the living teaching authority (the magisterium) established by Christ to insure that His teaching would be handed down to succeeding ages in its integrity and without error, as its active aspect.
To understand the Catholic Church’s teaching in regard to Sacred Tradition, we must consider several things:
a) Public revelation ceased with Christ and the apostles and evangelists who recorded His teachings;
b) Christ commissioned His apostles to preach;
c) Christ established a living teaching authority to safeguard the integrity of the gospel message, and to apply it with divine authority to succeeding ages;
d) The development of the gospel message is not new doctrine. “
pacifier.com/rosary-center.org/ll47n4.htm

 

[po18guy]

I figured you’d be out of spear by now…not so I see. Such a shame.

The bees are circling the hive.

 

[Contarini]

Reformed, perhaps this may help a bit…
Sacred Tradition is the sum of revealed doctrine which has not been committed to Sacred Scripture

Can you give me an official Catholic teaching saying that Sacred Tradition encompasses only those doctrines not found in Scripture (not just a pious website giving one private opinion)? As I understand Dei Verbum, Tradition is the entire body of revelation as it has been handed down and interpreted by the Church.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

Can you give me an official Catholic teaching saying that Sacred Tradition encompasses only those doctrines not found in Scripture (not just a pious website giving one private opinion)? As I understand Dei Verbum, Tradition is the entire body of revelation as it has been handed down and interpreted by the Church.

Edwin

I believe that you are correct, Edwin. My only caveat would be that revelation lead to certain practices, which are not revelation per se, but were produced as a result of that revelation. Thus, they are also considered within Tradition. A distinction of derivation.

 

[twb1621]

Can you give me an official Catholic teaching saying that Sacred Tradition encompasses only those doctrines not found in Scripture (not just a pious website giving one private opinion)? As I understand Dei Verb um, Tradition is the entire body of revelation as it has been handed down and interpreted by the Church.

Edwin

if one realizes that scripture itself came from sacred tradition there would have to be an understanding that scripture is a part of that tradition and of course related to it, like an extension to scripture. Sacred Tradition encompasses all that is taught about Christianity by the Church in regard to not only the interpretation of the scripture but the doctrines that extend its Essences throughout the ages and as applied in each age. If you want verification of the necessity of sacred tradition, I would suggest going through the gospel and actually noting aside in a word document excerpts of those that pertain to the instructions Jesus gave to the Apostles regarding teaching and those excerpts of that which the apostles instruct their brothers in carrying on the teachings. Once you put those together you will see a distinction and the necessity of both ST and SC. I have done this and it is very interesting. But this you must do yourself to be satisfied.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Can you give me an official Catholic teaching saying that Sacred Tradition encompasses only those doctrines not found in Scripture (not just a pious website giving one private opinion)? As I understand Dei Verbum, Tradition is the entire body of revelation as it has been handed down and interpreted by the Church.

Edwin, I’m neither aware of language stating Tradition is that which is not in Scripture. You are correct that Scripture was born of Tradition handed on verbally. It might be a fine line too, but Dei Verbum doesn’t just say Tradition is the “entire body of revelation”

*DV9 - Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.

DV10 - Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.*

So Dei Verbum is sure to put Scripture and Tradition side-by-side in identifying what makes up all of divine revelation.

However, there might also be something in *Divino Afflante Spiritu *or Provedentissimus Deus that more specifically states that Scripture was born of the earliest Tradition. I want to say I’ve read something to that effect, maybe from Cardinal Ratzinger or one of those encyclicals or maybe even the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church document when it discusses the “diachronic” method of how Scripture was assembled.

 

[Reformed]

I am closing my participation on this thread in light of this wonderful posting below. (sorry, I changed my mind)

:
Ori

ginally Posted by novaslasher
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

DV9 - Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.

DV10 - Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.

I find this extremely disturbing from the church who claims to be the One True Church. It seems the leaders of the Catholic Church debates within themselves what consists of the Sacred Deposit of Faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints. Does anyone else see the major problems with this when we are trying to determine the will of God?

 

[Contarini]

MarcoPolo,

I was basing my position on the passage you yourself just quoted from DV 9: that Sacred Tradition takes the word of God and hands it on, while Scripture is the word of God insofar as that Word has been committed to writing under divine inspiration.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

if one realizes that scripture itself came from sacred tradition there would have to be an understanding that scripture is a part of that tradition and of course related to it, like an extension to scripture.

That is not what DV says. I myself (as an Anglican) would define the terms this way: Sacred Tradition is the apostolic teaching as it has been preserved and handed down in various ways, and Scripture is the most reliable source for that Tradition. But that’s not how DV defines it. Rather, it defines Tradition as the Word of God (divine revelation/apostolic teaching) as it has been passed down through the centuries in/by the Church, while Scripture is divine revelation committed to writing. Scripture is “part” of Tradition in this understanding only in the sense that Tradition embraces all of divine revelation in the fullness of its historic development and practice within the Church, while Scripture may or may not contain all divine revelation (as I understand it, this is a point on which Catholics can disagree), but certainly does not provide the full and necessary context for the interpretation and application of divine revelation.

I entirely agree with this last point, by the way. The “formal sufficiency” of Scripture is an untenable position.

Edwin

 

[twb1621]

That is not what DV says. I myself (as an Anglican) would define the terms this way: Sacred Tradition is the apostolic teaching as it has been preserved and handed down in various ways, and Scripture is the most reliable source for that Tradition. But that’s not how DV defines it. Rather, it defines Tradition as the Word of God (divine revelation/apostolic teaching) as it has been passed down through the centuries in/by the Church, while Scripture is divine revelation committed to writing. Scripture is “part” of Tradition in this understanding only in the sense that Tradition embraces all of divine revelation in the fullness of its historic development and practice within the Church, while Scripture may or may not contain all divine revelation (as I understand it, this is a point on which Catholics can disagree), but certainly does not provide the full and necessary context for the interpretation and application of divine revelation.

I entirely agree with this last point, by the way. The “formal sufficiency” of Scripture is an untenable position.

Edwin

My point is that the gospel was not written until many years after the establishment of the Church and the Gospel was in fact written from the very sacred traditions as taught by the apostles in their ministry. That is their origin. They are a necessity to each other .

 

[Contarini]

What are you talking about? In the ancient world most people were illiterate

That is a matter of some debate.

and didn’t have pocket Gideons.

Certainly true but hardly relevant.

Christianity practice through liturgy which caused memorization of scripture orally and in community.

Yes, but with the collapse of the Western Empire a sharp gap opened between written Latin and the oral language of the people. The Western Church failed to bridge this gap adequately, and by the later Middle Ages this rather elitist approach had hardened into a fear of “misunderstanding” by the common people. As I’m sure you know, the liturgy was always celebrated in Latin, though at some times and places bits of it might be repeated in the vernacular, and many selections and paraphrases were available for those educated enough to read the vernacular (the practice of parallel-column Missals with complete vernacular translations of the liturgy dates back not much earlier than the beginning of the 20th century, as far as I know, and of course such books would not have benefited the illiterate). There doesn’t seem to have been an entirely consistent practice with regard to Scriptures in the vernacular. At times, under pressure of heresy, vernacular Bibles were banned (though in fairness many of these may have been loose paraphrases themselves), but in the decades before the Reformation there was an explosion of vernacular translations in just about every European language except English (where such translations were banned because of the Lollards), and as far as I know the Catholic Church had no problem with these translations until the reaction to the Reformation brought about a more uniform and repressive policy.

You find Martin Luther was a Lawyer then a priest.

He never practiced law, and he did not get far with his legal studies before throwing them over to join the Augustinian Order. This is a very poor argument. You are right that Calvin’s education was legal and humanistic (i.e., “liberal arts”) rather than theological. But Luther had a doctorate in theology.

Before that the masses relied on the liturgy unless they were educated.

A liturgy celebrated in a language they did not understand, though of course a pious layperson would have understood the basic structure and some of the phrases. But they would not have understood the Scripture readings, which as far as I can tell were only rarely accompanied by a vernacular translation (because this is how things were done in the decades immediately before Vatican II, people often assume that this was the traditional practice–if you have evidence for this, please tell me, because I have honestly looked and not found much).

Education of Europe happened because of the efforts of Charlemagne and others.

Charlemagne was 700 years before the Reformation, and while his reforms did have some longterm effects, the chaos of the tenth century swept many things away. You would do better to start with the twelfth century “Renaissance” (more deserving in truth of that name than the later movement in Italy).

The nobles were educated

Not always by any means

and could read both latin and their regional tongue.

I seriously doubt that most of them could read Latin.

Edwin