Sacred Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter anotherlook
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anotherlook

Guest
I’ve been reading about Sacred Tradition in the Catholic faith and would like some more Catholic feed back on what it is and how to identify its work in the Church. Would appreciate any thought you might have.

Anotherlook
 
Thanks Passs for the references and I have viewed them. I guess my question, since I am taking another look at the Catholic Church after 42 years, is: really what is Sacred Tradition?

I know it is Traditions verbally handed down to the apostles and succeeding Bishops of the church but HOW CAN THEY BE INFALLIBLE? It seems to me that anything verbally transmitted is subject to misinterpretation. In a room full of people say a statement to one of them and have them pass it on until the last person to receive it has to say it to the whole group - it usually is quite different than the original statement.

Now I know it becomes a matter of Faith and the work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the bottom line for a Catholic, is faith in these Sacred Traditions as explained by the Magisterium. At the moment, that is a leap I am struggling with.

Anotherlook
 
anotherlook said:
Thanks Passs for the references and I have viewed them. I guess my question, since I am taking another look at the Catholic Church after 42 years, is: really what is Sacred Tradition?

I know it is Traditions verbally handed down to the apostles and succeeding Bishops of the church but HOW CAN THEY BE INFALLIBLE? It seems to me that anything verbally transmitted is subject to misinterpretation. In a room full of people say a statement to one of them and have them pass it on until the last person to receive it has to say it to the whole group - it usually is quite different than the original statement.

Now I know it becomes a matter of Faith and the work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the bottom line for a Catholic, is faith in these Sacred Traditions as explained by the Magisterium. At the moment, that is a leap I am struggling with.

Anotherlook
Click to expand...
I have a different question. How can someone possibly accept the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God and not the balance of Sacred Tradition? How do they justify this dichotomy?

Keep in mind that the Bible (Sacred Scripture) is a subset of Sacred Tradition – which is not to be confused with the mere customs, disciplines or “traditions” of man. Like the rest of Sacred Tradition, the different books of the Bible were handed down verbally for many years through many people before they were written. Centuries in the case of some OT books. No autographs of even a single book of the Bible exists today.
 
Pauly said:
I have a different question. How can someone possibly accept the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God and not the balance of Sacred Tradition? How do they justify this dichotomy?

Keep in mind that the Bible (Sacred Scripture) is a subset of Sacred Tradition – which is not to be confused with the mere customs, disciplines or “traditions” of man. Like the rest of Sacred Tradition, the different books of the Bible were handed down verbally for many years through many people before they were written. Centuries in the case of some OT books. No autographs of even a single book of the Bible exists today.
Click to expand...
Okay, I understand Catholic’s do not divide Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as both are a Sacred Deposit to the Church. I understand Sacred Tradition is not customs, disciplines or traditions of man.

I understanding Sacred Scripture is the Word of God and Sacred Tradition is what the magisterium applies to interpretation of Scripture. (And correct me where I am wrong.)

However, WHAT IS SACRED TRADITION? Is it only understood by the Magisterium? Can Sacred Tradition be understood by the simple Catholic or must the simple Catholic accept its mystery by faith alone.

This is the feedback I am looking for…

Ronald L Conte, Jr. has an interesting definition of Sacred Tradition and here is a link to his article: catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm

Anotherlook
 
anotherlook said:
Okay, I understand Catholic’s do not divide Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as both are a Sacred Deposit to the Church. I understand Sacred Tradition is not customs, disciplines or traditions of man.

I understanding Sacred Scripture is the Word of God and Sacred Tradition is what the magisterium applies to interpretation of Scripture. (And correct me where I am wrong.)

However, WHAT IS SACRED TRADITION? Is it only understood by the Magisterium? Can Sacred Tradition be understood by the simple Catholic or must the simple Catholic accept its mystery by faith alone.

This is the feedback I am looking for…

Ronald L Conte, Jr. has an interesting definition of Sacred Tradition and here is a link to his article: catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm

Anotherlook
Click to expand...
Actually the “Word of God” is Jesus Christ. The word of God is the Bible.

Don’t try to separate Sacred Scripture from Sacred Tradition. The Bible is a subset, a part of Sacred Traditions.

Sacred Tradition is the totality of the deposit of faith from God through His Church. In practical terms? The Bible plus the CCC.
 
Pauly said:
I have a different question. How can someone possibly accept the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God and not the balance of Sacred Tradition? How do they justify this dichotomy?

Keep in mind that the Bible (Sacred Scripture) is a subset of Sacred Tradition – which is not to be confused with the mere customs, disciplines or “traditions” of man. Like the rest of Sacred Tradition, the different books of the Bible were handed down verbally for many years through many people before they were written. Centuries in the case of some OT books. No autographs of even a single book of the Bible exists today.
Click to expand...
the Gospels were written by the apostles themselves except for the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke, a gentile who happened to be St. Paul’s very close confidant. and of course the writers of the Epistles and Revelations were all identified. St. John himself said that if everything Jesus did was written, not the whole world could contain them. those not written are the sacred Tradition the Church has faithfully kept. and though no original writings survived, more than 6,000 extants are still kept by the Vatican.😉
God bless.
 
anotherlook said:
Thanks Passs for the references and I have viewed them. I guess my question, since I am taking another look at the Catholic Church after 42 years, is: really what is Sacred Tradition?

I know it is Traditions verbally handed down to the apostles and succeeding Bishops of the church but HOW CAN THEY BE INFALLIBLE? It seems to me that anything verbally transmitted is subject to misinterpretation. In a room full of people say a statement to one of them and have them pass it on until the last person to receive it has to say it to the whole group - it usually is quite different than the original statement.

Now I know it becomes a matter of Faith and the work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the bottom line for a Catholic, is faith in these Sacred Traditions as explained by the Magisterium. At the moment, that is a leap I am struggling with.

Anotherlook
Click to expand...
What verbal tradition do you think has been misinterpreted?
 
anything verbally transmitted is subject to misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
So is anything writtenly transmitted. In other words, without a Divine promise of preservation, both are worthless. But with one – both are priceless. Moreover, everything written enters into mens’ minds just like everything spoken – and only lives within men, which is where it truly must be preserved to be of any use whatsoever to anyone.

So the book part is actually a step away from where things are truly preserved – within men.

Nevertheless, sacred tradition is found in books. To find it with assurity, one simply reads what is written by saints throughout the ages.
 
I have no specific verbal misinterpretation in mind. It is only in the general sense of verbal error.

Probably the best definition of Sacred Tradition I have heard so far is from Ronald Conte who says:
"Sacred Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.” Sacred Tradition includes both the deeds and their meaning. The deeds of God, and especially the deeds of Christ, teach us Christ’s Way of holiness, which is partially-revealed in the deeds God wrought in Old Testament times and fully-revealed in Christ’s own life of self-giving. The meaning of the deeds includes love, faith, hope, mercy, prayer, self-sacrifice, and more, as Christ put it into practice in the events of His life, His death on the Cross, His Resurrection, and the “final sending of the Spirit of truth” at Pentecost (Dei Verbum, 2). Sacred Tradition is not these ideas themselves (of love, faith, hope, mercy, prayer, self-sacrifice, and more), but rather their embodiment in the deeds of God in salvation history, in the life and works of Christ, and in the Church that Christ established. Sacred Tradition is infallible because it is the deeds that God wrought, especially the deeds that God-Incarnate wrought, in the history of salvation. The true meaning of Sacred Tradition is infallible, just as the true meaning of Sacred Scripture is infallible. Not an Oral Tradition "

Are there any other definitions any of you might add?

Anotherlook
 
Hi anotherlook and welcome. Let me give it a simple shot (I’m a simple guy). Sacred Tradition is everything the Church has given us over the last 2000 years to teach us who God is and what we must do to have eternal life. Here is how I see it:

Jesus comes, teaches, dies, rises, teaches some more, ascends. He does not write down a word, but founds a Church to carry on His teachings as He taught and lived them. These are the first Sacred Traditions.

His disciples decide to write down the good news of Christ and mention His teachings in letters to the various parts of the Church throughout the world. The Church collects these gospels and letters and decides which ones are inspired and codifies them into Sacred Scripture. While this is going on, the Church is still teaching using Sacred Tradition.

Because the Church now has written scripture, it is open to the interpretation of generations. The Church helps us to understand what the Scripture means (i.e. When He says “this is My Body” he really means “this is My Body”) by Sacred Tradition, which carries on today.

So in short, Sacred Tradition is everything that the Pope and the Magisterium (as an ordinary teaching or in Council) define as an absolute certainty in matters of faith or morals.

Many many folks struggle with infallibility. Try to grasp this: could we know we correctly are worshipping God if every Pope or collection of Bishops over the last 2,000 years had different interpretations of what Christ meant or did not mean? Did or did not do? Said or did not say? No, of course not, which is why the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope or the Magisterium from teaching in error on matters of faith or morals and that infallible teaching is Sacred Tradition.

It is easier, at least for me, to grasp this idea of infallable Tradition by faith and not by logic. Look up in the sky, now look down at your finger. If you can believe God created everything in the universe down to the smallest atom, why can’t you believe He can’t keep His Church from teaching in error in His name?

One last point - don’t get confused between big “T” Tradition and small “t” tradition. Many traditions have come through the various rites over the years (rosary, chapel veils, icons, etc.) but they are not necessary for salvation - they wonderfully help us along the road.
 
The simple answer is:

The Bible is Sacred Scripture, which is the written word of God.

Sacred Tradition is the spoken word of God.

The long answer, from Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth:

**HOW GOD SPEAKS TO US **

As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

**Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83) **
Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.

**Scripture (CCC 101–141) **
Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a “tradition of men” that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions.

Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.

Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the “Bible alone,” but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.

We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The “Bible alone” theory must be false.

**The Magisterium (CCC 85–87, 888–892) **
Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for “teacher”). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do.

Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)

The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors “into all truth” (John 16:12–13).
 
Thanks Passs for the references and I have viewed them. I guess my question, since I am taking another look at the Catholic Church after 42 years, is: really what is Sacred Tradition?

I know it is Traditions verbally handed down to the apostles and succeeding Bishops of the church but HOW CAN THEY BE INFALLIBLE?
The Eastern definition of Tradition is “the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.”

Don’t forget, the Bible is in itself Tradition. It didn’t drop down out of heavel already written, did it? It was TRADITION–the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church’s life–that determined what would be in the Bible.
 
Wow. Thank you, The Doctor and 06 Convert. That is exactly the (name removed by moderator)ut I needed. Both of you brought incredible clarity on Sacared Tradition. As I take another look at the Catholic Church after 42 years it is amazing how God works in our lives. The Imitation of Christ says in part: “Wait for me to arrange matters and you will realize how much better off you are for it.” During those 42 years I was in a Scripture only church and everything you mention, 06Convert took place. It is man’s interpretation. I am begining to see this more and more. Thanks both of you for your words and thank you God for directing there replies to me.

anotherlook
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top