Sacred Tradition

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m glad you clarified this statement; I was considering asking you to.

All the rest is nicely written and clear (at least to me!).

Thanks! Yes, it sounded like Fuego may have been leaving open the possibility that the CC holds there is new revelation after the death of the last Apostle, and I just wanted to forestall that.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Context, please! Fuego’s question was: “If we consider only the truths revealed during the NT times, were these truths (in Sacred Tradition) spoken first by either Christ or His Apostles?”

(1) By “entire” I wanted to ensure he realized the Catholic teaching is that no new public revelation was given after the death of the last apostle, as I said. Be sure to check that with the theologian.

(2) I had already said that God’s word was transmitted by STC. The theologian can verify that STC (i.e., Scripture, T, and C) includes the OT.

(3) Check with him also to see that “the gospel” (what Jesus and the apostles taught) includes the proper interpretation of the OT as fulfulled in Christ, which Jesus and the NT authors plainly teach, and the transmission of the OT.

(4) Fuego’s question concerned what was specifically Christian and the how of transmission in that context. The theologian can verify that Sacred Tradition has an active and passive dimension, process versus content, how versus what.

(5) One cannot cram every last theological truth explicitly in every theological sentence.

Covered above (1)-(5). He wants to know what is specifically Christian and placed emphasis on the question of how it is transmitted, not as much on the what, content.

Covered, see (2), (3) and (5).

Actually (as the theologian will verify) the ECFs are witnesses to the life and teaching of the early church and consent among them gives us access to Apostolic Tradition transmitting what was already given in the deposit of faith. They also give us access to ecclesiastical traditions such as the form for some of the sacraments as they have developed in time, and other practices like the date of Easter. But perhaps this is what you meant to say.

Fuego asked about truths spoken by Christ and the Apostles with reference to the deposit of faith; and truths spoken by Christ and the Apostles with reference to the deposit of faith includes everything you mentioned. Again, (5).

When I read what you wrote I was perplexed at what you were trying to say. I thank you for your clarification and the insights of AmbroseSJ and FathersKnowBest. I was just hoping to include the old testament deposit of faith as part of revelation which was not included in your “entirety” but which you explained your meaning. The theologian I consulted with works with a Fr. Miller who I am told was the one supervising the doctoral thesis of Scott Hahn. Just a little trivia

 

[Fuego]

(1) The entire deposit of faith was revealed in NT times. There is nothing revealed after NT times–after the death of the last apostle.

(2) Regarding Sacred Tradition narrowly understood as a mode of transmission of the gospel in the Church other than writing, the answer to your question is “yes.”

(a) However the term “truths” suggests explicitly formulated propositions. This would be misleading. Without out excluding 'truths", there is far more transmitted in the gospel proclaimed (by the church) than can be explicitly grasped and formulated at any one time. The entire saving and transforming encounter with God in Christ along with the community life of the church was handed on in the proclamation of the word of God by the apostles and apostolic men. Newman is good on this point.

(b) Further, given that we hold all God wanted humanity to have comes down to us in STC, again understood as a whole, the Church has not made any statement suggesting whether or not any dogmatic truths are transmitted in Tradition alone apart from Scripture. I say this because your question could be understood as assuming a separation in STC with the resultant notion that a separate set of ready-formed dogmatic truths come down to us in Tradition alone.

(3) Sacred Tradition broadly understood as the transmission of Christianity as a whole includes writing, as I indicated, and the Church as its subject. Here too the "truths (in Sacred Tradition) spoken first by either Christ or His Apostles’ are included along with the possibility that some things some NT authors wrote were not spoken first but were written first . . . by believers for believers as I said.

Thanks, Fr of Jazz. That answered my question pretty clearly.

Your point #1 confirms what I learned from my studies on the subject – i.e., that [public] revelation ceased after the death of the last Apostle (the deposit of faith, both written and unwritten, is closed).

Your point #2b is quite interesting as I have never come across anyone here at CAF who holds the same view (and I have read quite a number of members’ comments on the subject). Even the New Advent article on Tradition (the texts I cited) implies that the revealed truths in Tradition are not found in Scripture.

But I have always been skeptical of these viewpoints as I remember reading a book by Fr. Redford, a reputable theologian, where he said that Vatican II “refused to settle the question” whether there are doctrines in Tradition not found in Scripture. The implication of his statement is that it is even possible that all doctrines in Tradition can be found in the Bible. Is that how you look at it also?

By the way, the reason I asked for “only the truths revealed during NT times” was because there could be unwritten truths revealed by the prophets during the OT which have been made part of the church’s Sacred Tradition. Is there any to your knowledge, or is Sacred Tradition (the unwritten truths preserved by the CC) exclusively a product of the NT times?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But I have always been skeptical of these viewpoints as I remember reading a book by Fr. Redford, a reputable theologian, where he said that Vatican II “refused to settle the question” whether there are doctrines in Tradition not found in Scripture. The implication of his statement is that it is even possible that all doctrines in Tradition can be found in the Bible. Is that how you look at it also?

By the way, the reason I asked for “only the truths revealed during NT times” was because there could be unwritten truths revealed by the prophets during the OT which have been made part of the church’s Sacred Tradition. Is there any to your knowledge, or is Sacred Tradition (the unwritten truths preserved by the CC) exclusively a product of the NT times?

My 2 cents, although you didn’t ask me

Yes and Yes.

Yes, all doctrine and teachings of the Church (Sacred Tradition) can be obliquely or implied if not explicitly found in the Bible. The CCC usually cites Scripture for every single teaching in there.

Yes, The primitive Christian Church was BUILT UPON the framework of the tradition of the Jews. Baptism itself is an excellent example. So the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition includes the OT and the NT “times.”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Thanks, Fr of Jazz. That answered my question pretty clearly.

Glad to hear it!

Your point #1 confirms what I learned from my studies on the subject – i.e., that [public] revelation ceased after the death of the last Apostle (the deposit of faith, both written and unwritten, is closed).

Correct.

Your point #2b is quite interesting as I have never come across anyone here at CAF who holds the same view (and I have read quite a number of members’ comments on the subject). Even the New Advent article on Tradition (the texts I cited) implies that the revealed truths in Tradition are not found in Scripture.

But I have always been skeptical of these viewpoints as I remember reading a book by Fr. Redford, a reputable theologian, where he said that Vatican II “refused to settle the question” whether there are doctrines in Tradition not found in Scripture. The implication of his statement is that it is even possible that all doctrines in Tradition can be found in the Bible. Is that how you look at it also?

Correct. And the Council of Trent also refused to settle that question. The proposed statement of partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition at the deliberations was scrapped in favor just Scripture and Tradition.

There are some theologians who hold that there may well be is no dogmatic teaching in Tradition that is not somehow at least implicitly in Scripture.

Yves Congar’s position differs somewhat from that. He holds that we can’t rule out the possibility that dogmatic truths not found in Scripture are contained in Tradition, but rejects the understanding of that as fully formed assertions whispered ear to ear among the bishops down through time like the telephone game.

He does hold that there are liturgical and disciplinary matters handed on by tradition clearly in the ECFs and these can have doctrinal significance.

The way I look at it is this. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. From NT times on STC (united and interrelated) has been the way God’s word is handed on. Given the integral and complete nature of that process far more will be handed on than can be discerned by breaking them up and seeking to derive the deposit of faith from ones interpretation of the Bible alone in a particular year and culture.

Further given that God has revealed His word to creatures of His who can draw out validly what is inherent yet implicit in known truth, it follows that He as also revealed valid consequences and inferences that develop from the deposit of faith within the context of STC. St. Vincent of Lérins and Newman are good on this.

By the way, the reason I asked for “only the truths revealed during NT times” was because there could be unwritten truths revealed by the prophets during the OT which have been made part of the church’s Sacred Tradition. Is there any to your knowledge, or is Sacred Tradition (the unwritten truths preserved by the CC) exclusively a product of the NT times?

None explicitly formed that I can think of. However, I certainly think it is possible that something of the lived faith of Israel at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, which contains far more than can be distilled into writing alone, entered into Apostolic Tradition.

Also–although not directly on point–there are NT passages that reference events in OT times that are not in the canonical OT.

Acts 7:53 – Mosaic covenant given through angels. [Nowhere does the OT say this. It can be found in Flavius Josephus’ *Antiquities of the Jews and in the Book of Jubilees–both from Jewish tradition.] See also Gal 3:9; Heb 2:2-3

2 Tim 3:8-9 – Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses. [Not in OT. Jewish tradition lists these as the magicians who opposed Moses.]

Heb 11:36 – Indicates that, among other things, certain prophets and heroes were “sawed in two.” [Not in OT. It can be found in the non-canonical book the *Ascension of Isaiah 5:1-14]

Jude 8-9 – the Archangel Michael disputed Satan over the body of Moses. [Not in OT. Found in the Jewish book *Assumption of Moses.]

Jude 14-15 – Enoch’s prophesy. [Not in OT. It can be found in the non-canonical book of *Enoch 1:9]

 

[spina1953]

Vet interesting thread so far.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Fr of Jazz:

None explicitly formed that I can think of. However, I certainly think it is possible that something of the lived faith of Israel at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, which contains far more than can be distilled into writing alone, entered into Apostolic Tradition.

Infant Baptism is certainly one of those things. It is without doubt an Apostolic Tradition as attested to by the ECFs. So much of what we argue with Protestants on this score is not explicitly in the Bible because it was IMPLICITLY understood by the Apostles when Jesus said Baptize all nations and make them disciples. The Jewish understanding of Baptism was such that if Jesus were making a change, he would have NEEDED to say “except infants.” Because the Apostles would have understood Jesus in terms of Jewish Baptism.

Male converts to Judaism were required to be 1.) circumcised 2.) baptized 3.) offer sacrifice. Female converts only 2 & 3. Once a Jew was baptized, his children no longer needed baptism. All Jews were considered “clean” and all Gentiles were “unclean.”

Why were the Jews clean? Because they were all baptized under Mt. Sinai when Moses had them purify themselves after worshiping at the golden calf. It was a baptism. They and all of their children were henceforth clean. (But circumcision was still required to enter into the covenant, and was ALWAYS performed on infants on the 8th day after their birth or thereabouts. A sacrifice was also offered. Hence our Feast of the Purification, and presentation of Jesus in the temple with two turtle doves. (Jesus was already circumcised.)

That is why St. Paul says there are NO JEWs, no Greeks, but all are the same. Everyone needs to be baptized, EVEN JEWS.

So everything about the Christian Sacramental baptism is a perfected Jewish tradition of baptism. Even the traditional exorcism at Baptism has its roots in Jewish tradition.

 

[spina1953]

Beyond this, it is HOW the Christian Dispensation works. Jesus told the Apostles, There is much that I have to say to you but you can not bear it all now.

The Church, reveals over time, (necessarily) the fullness and depth of Truth. It unfolds like a blossoming flower. The Deposit of Faith, handed down by the Apostles was a bud, but it had not yet blossomed. Over the ages the Church has continued to REVEAL the further depths of this Deposit of Faith. That is why the Church CONTINUES to be the Oracle of Divine Revelation. The Deposit of Faith was complete at the death of the last Apostle, but Divine Revelation (by way of Sacred Tradition in the Church) continues to this day. That is why Catholics hold WITH A DIVINE FAITH, that which is taught by the Catholic Church. We believe that it is Divine Revelation.

Great post! I thought of it but you got to it first again thanks for the great post.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Infant Baptism is certainly one of those things. It is without doubt an Apostolic Tradition as attested to by the ECFs. So much of what we argue with Protestants on this score is not explicitly in the Bible because it was IMPLICITLY understood by the Apostles when Jesus said Baptize all nations and make them disciples. The Jewish understanding of Baptism was such that if Jesus were making a change, he would have NEEDED to say “except infants.” Because the Apostles would have understood Jesus in terms of Jewish Baptism.

Male converts to Judaism were required to be 1.) circumcised 2.) baptized 3.) offer sacrifice. Female converts only 2 & 3. Once a Jew was baptized, his children no longer needed baptism. All Jews were considered “clean” and all Gentiles were “unclean.”

Why were the Jews clean? Because they were all baptized under Mt. Sinai when Moses had them purify themselves after worshiping at the golden calf. It was a baptism. They and all of their children were henceforth clean. (But circumcision was still required to enter into the covenant, and was ALWAYS performed on infants on the 8th day after their birth or thereabouts. A sacrifice was also offered. Hence our Feast of the Purification, and presentation of Jesus in the temple with two turtle doves. (Jesus was already circumcised.)

That is why St. Paul says there are NO JEWs, no Greeks, but all are the same. Everyone needs to be baptized, EVEN JEWS.

So everything about the Christian Sacramental baptism is a perfected Jewish tradition of baptism. Even the traditional exorcism at Baptism has its roots in Jewish tradition.

Good post. It is a matter of Typology as you have stated without saying the word. I believe it is St. Ambrose who said that the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.
Not only baptism but other Sacraments of the New had minor sacraments in the Old that pointed to something much greater.
If I had to guess there are things in the Talmud that confirm our Sacred Traditions IE angels, etc. I have also been told from good sources that all Sacred Traditions are explicit or hinted at in Scripture. I hope that is not painting with too broad of a brush.

Thanks again.

 

[HB11]

:thumbsup:enjoying all the info

 

[mdcpensive1]

:thumbsup:enjoying all the info

You and me both.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mdcpensive1:

I believe it is St. Ambrose who said that the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

I like that! I’ll remember that.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I like that! I’ll remember that.

Sorry if I was wrong, but on second thought it could have been St. Justin. Must be something about tax season !!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is the order of the Gospels–Matthew–then Mark–then Luke–then John Sacred Tradition?

What about the order of the other books of the bible–New Testament–and Old Testament–is that Sacred Tradition?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is the order of the Gospels–Matthew–then Mark–then Luke–then John Sacred Tradition?

What about the order of the other books of the bible–New Testament–and Old Testament–is that Sacred Tradition?

 

[Fuego]

My 2 cents, although you didn’t ask me

Yes and Yes.

Yes, all doctrine and teachings of the Church (Sacred Tradition) can be obliquely or implied if not explicitly found in the Bible. The CCC usually cites Scripture for every single teaching in there.

Yes, The primitive Christian Church was BUILT UPON the framework of the tradition of the Jews. Baptism itself is an excellent example. So the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition includes the OT and the NT “times.”

Thanks AmbroseSJ, appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Sorry if I was wrong, but on second thought it could have been St. Justin. Must be something about tax season !!

Actually, it was St. Augustine.

 

[Fuego]

Glad to hear it!

Correct.

Correct. And the Council of Trent also refused to settle that question. The proposed statement of partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition at the deliberations was scrapped in favor just Scripture and Tradition.

There are some theologians who hold that there may well be is no dogmatic teaching in Tradition that is not somehow at least implicitly in Scripture.

Yves Congar’s position differs somewhat from that. He holds that we can’t rule out the possibility that dogmatic truths not found in Scripture are contained in Tradition, but rejects the understanding of that as fully formed assertions whispered ear to ear among the bishops down through time like the telephone game.

He does hold that there are liturgical and disciplinary matters handed on by tradition clearly in the ECFs and these can have doctrinal significance.

The way I look at it is this. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. From NT times on STC (united and interrelated) has been the way God’s word is handed on. Given the integral and complete nature of that process far more will be handed on than can be discerned by breaking them up and seeking to derive the deposit of faith from ones interpretation of the Bible alone in a particular year and culture.

Further given that God has revealed His word to creatures of His who can draw out validly what is inherent yet implicit in known truth, it follows that He as also revealed valid consequences and inferences that develop from the deposit of faith within the context of STC. St. Vincent of Lérins and Newman are good on this.

None explicitly formed that I can think of. However, I certainly think it is possible that something of the lived faith of Israel at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, which contains far more than can be distilled into writing alone, entered into Apostolic Tradition.

Also–although not directly on point–there are NT passages that reference events in OT times that are not in the canonical OT.

Acts 7:53 – Mosaic covenant given through angels. [Nowhere does the OT say this. It can be found in Flavius Josephus’ *Antiquities of the Jews

and in the Book of Jubilees–both from Jewish tradition.] See also Gal 3:9; Heb 2:2-3

2 Tim 3:8-9 – Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses. [Not in OT. Jewish tradition lists these as the magicians who opposed Moses.]

Heb 11:36 – Indicates that, among other things, certain prophets and heroes were “sawed in two.” [Not in OT. It can be found in the non-canonical book the *Ascension of Isaiah 5:1-14]

Jude 8-9 – the Archangel Michael disputed Satan over the body of Moses. [Not in OT. Found in the Jewish book *Assumption of Moses.]

Jude 14-15 – Enoch’s prophesy. [Not in OT. It can be found in the non-canonical book of *Enoch 1:9]

Thanks for all the info, Fr of Jazz. I think I have a much better understanding of the CC’s concept of Sacred Tradition now.
Very interesting views from the posters and good questions too.

 

[spina1953]

I am not sure as to the order of the Gospels in that how the Church decided the order but by Tradition Mark was who wrote for Peter was written first then Matthew who wrote for Jewish converts, then Luke who wrote for Paul, and lastly John who wrote the last Gospel.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am not sure as to the order of the Gospels in that how the Church decided the order but by Tradition Mark was who wrote for Peter was written first then Matthew who wrote for Jewish converts, then Luke who wrote for Paul, and lastly John who wrote the last Gospel.

Markan priority is actually not the traditional belief; rather, it is a new theory.
I’d very highly recommend reading this wonderful article/book:
The Clementine Gospel Tradition