M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Why do Anglicans and Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and rely solely on Sacred Scripture? The Christian Church existed before the New Testament came into being.
- Status
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
When I was an Anglican, that was one of the issues which got me thinking about the Catholic Church
Another issue was that I noticed that everyone was sincere about following scripture, and everyone had their own interpretation of it.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
It is rejected because history proves that the tradition that preceded the New Testament does not include the “Sacred Traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the writings of the New Testament were held as Scripture from the first century. They are reliable and historically verifiable.
C
Cruxis117
Guest
Hmm, it appears that history is actually against you, on this one. They actually do include the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church.It is rejected because history proves that the tradition that preceded the New Testament does not include the “Sacred Traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the writings of the New Testament were held as Scripture from the first century. They are reliable and historically verifiable.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Oh really? Is that why you own and read the bible canonized by and through the Catholic Church? That is a Tradition being passed on and that is historically verifiable! I challenge you to show us otherwise?It is rejected because history proves that the tradition that preceded the New Testament does not include the “Sacred Traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the writings of the New Testament were held as Scripture from the first century. They are reliable and historically verifiable.
L
Lapey
Guest
Actually he is correct…at least technically. The Catholic Church only became known as the RCC after the reformation. Before then there was no need to call it anything but the Church.It is rejected because history proves that the tradition that preceded the New Testament does not include the “Sacred Traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the writings of the New Testament were held as Scripture from the first century. They are reliable and historically verifiable.
On the other hand, these Sacred Traditions became know as Roman Catholic at the same time in history, same Church and the same Tradition.
And to be a little more precise on your ascertain that “the writings of the new testament were held as scripture from the first century” argument; the Catholic Church in the fourth century used this for one of it’s criterion to “canonize” scripture. In other words, if in fact a first century writing was used regularly in the celebration and worship service by the early Christians, this was one of several hurdles it had to cross. These celebrations are documented as the “breaking of bread” the early Church celebrated the mass.
Actually, Lutherans do not reject Tradition. We do, however, require it to be accountable to scripture. So, not all communions that are generally categorized as Protestant reject Tradition.
Nor do we solely rely on scripture. Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran reformer:
Jon
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi Friends: Can someone tell me what the sacred traditions are that are being rejected by Protestants?
Your friend
Sufjon
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Hi Sufjon
Most, if not all, Protestants take the stance that the only things that Christians should believe are things which can be backed up by some reference in the Bible.
For Catholics, Sacred Tradition is those things we believe that cannot necessarily be backed up by reference to the Bible. I suppose you could loosely call it an oral tradition.
The early Church existed before the books of the New Testament were written and Sacred Tradition are those things passed down to us from Apostolic times.
This is not the best description of Sacred Tradition you’ll get but I think it gives you the gist.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Dear Friend Matthew Holford: Thank you for the response. Can you tell me some of the traditions that the Catholic Church has that aren’t backed up by the Bible? I’m not Catholic and not an expert, so I was unaware that there were traditions or practices in that Church that weren’t backed up by the Bible.
Your friend
Sufjon
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Dear Sufjon
I’d rather not quote any examples. It is not quite as simple as I made it sound. It is a theological matter and theology is not an area in which I am well versed.
OK, I’ll take a jump into the dark but I think some examples (because they are areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants): the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the BVM.
You may wonder, if I am not too sure what Sacred Tradition covers, why I posed the question. It’s because I wanted to know why Protestants basically only accept the Bible. Of course, they have an advantage in taking this stance. The Protestants came about during the Reformation when the Bible had existed for hundreds of years. Christians at the Church’s infancy didn’t have a Bible or at least they had no New Testament. Christ didn’t leave us with a Bible at the first Pentecost. So, the first Christians had no Bible to turn to and on which they could base their beliefs. It is what they believed that has been passed down to us in what we call Sacred Tradition.
Matt
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi Matt: thanks again for the response. I didn’t know there was any faith that didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. Personally I don’t find the Immaculate Conception a hard thing to believe. Anyway, this is how I learn, and thanks very much for the help.
Your friend
Sufjon
C
catholicmom2010
Guest
Actually the term Catholic was used well before the Reformation. We just finished a series on the Early Church Fathers and Ignatius of Antioch used the term Catholic Church in the Letter to the Smyrneans. He was martyred before 117 AD.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Most of the early Protestants did not reject tradition. What they did do was put limits on it, and make it subservient to Scripture. So the mind of the Church, through the writings of the Fathers for example, was still important in understanding Scripture. But generally they wanted a clear link. Another typical view was that Scripture contained all knowledge required for salvation. So, as an example, many believed deeply in the perpetual virginity of Mary - however, they did not consider it a requirement for salvation.
Why did they take this approach? Well, they were faced with many practices, which grew out of the understanding of Tradition, or which were supposedly justified by Tradition, which seemed to be (and often really were) clearly wrong, inappropriate, or immoral. It seemed to them that the authority of the Church could not be relied on to mediate God’s message to us. Thus they looked for another primary mediator and authority which would not be subject to that kind of corruption and change, and they felt they had found it in Scripture.
Why did they take this approach? Well, they were faced with many practices, which grew out of the understanding of Tradition, or which were supposedly justified by Tradition, which seemed to be (and often really were) clearly wrong, inappropriate, or immoral. It seemed to them that the authority of the Church could not be relied on to mediate God’s message to us. Thus they looked for another primary mediator and authority which would not be subject to that kind of corruption and change, and they felt they had found it in Scripture.
S
simspt
Guest
To my understanding tradition influenced the formation of Scripture and Scripture later influenced tradition. Both occurred in the greater context of the Church.It is rejected because history proves that the tradition that preceded the New Testament does not include the “Sacred Traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the writings of the New Testament were held as Scripture from the first century. They are reliable and historically verifiable.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
As I understand the OP, the question is regarding “Sacred Tradition” not tradition. Sacred Traditions are those traditions that Catholics consider to be equal with Scripture.
The claim from the pope of the Catholic Church is that the church only considers what has been handed on from the apostles to be Sacred Tradition. The canon of Scripture cannot be considered Sacred Tradition under this definition because the apostles could not have handed it down. There is tradition for the development of the canon, but the apostles did not hand down that tradition.
I reject Sacred Tradition, not because I am a “Bible only” Christian, but because I highly value the history of our Christian faith and the men whom the apostle entrusted the church. I can find no credible evidence that the apostle taught any of the Sacred Traditions taught by the Catholic Church.
What is your opinion on this simspt?
A
agent_grey
Guest
They are a new church and therefor have no claim to sacred tradition and they know it.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Who are a new church?
- Status