Scripture and Tradition Questions

[Protestant101]

Should Catholic “Tradition” be put forward as being of co-ordinate authority with God’s written Word, the holy Bible? Is Catholic “Tradition” actually part of the ‘canon’ of Scripture?

Why was it not written therein, along with the canon of Scripture, as we know it today? Correct me if I am wrong; but some Catholic “Tradition” is not even in the Catholic version of the canon of Scripture? Certain of your doctrines which are “Tradition” were not even in existence, until after the canon was established.

Exactly which doctrines, as officially held by the Catholic Church, are considered as “Tradition?” Can you give a comprehensive list? Even just three of the major ones which are officially “Tradition” to the Catholic Church would be helpful.

From what I understand; “Tradition” to the Catholic, is “the spoken word” and so I am trying to get a clearer picture of just what that is.

Because The Catholic Church Catechism specifically states:

"82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44;

then it must be important for us to be able to decipher exactly which doctrines are “Tradition?”

The “depositum fidei” combined with the Catholic “Magisterium” apparently, are a “whole” in terms of “God’s Word;” (to the Catholic), and the Catechism also states:

“89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50”

and therefore; it would be an important link in the chain of understanding, for non-Catholics to grasp better what the Catholic Church teaches on the questions of doctrine and Tradition, which I have just presented.

Thanks, in advance, to those who wish to contribute to this topic.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Perhaps one way of understanding Tradition is: a common interpretation of the Church. This common interpretation is believed to be correct. It is believed to be correct because the Holy Spirit is with the Church.

I am not sure, but I would think most Christians churches have the same belief for their denomination.

Please forgive me, the acceptance of the individual books of the Holy Bible is a Tradition.

From what I know, no place in the Holy Bible does it say which books are Biblical.

It was/is the TRADITIONAL use of the early Church that established the Holy Scriptures.

Not to complicate the issue, the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Churches have different TRADITIONS for the canon of the Bible.

Again, from what I know, no place in the Holy Bible does it say which books are Biblical.

I am not a scholar, so I am not certain how accurate my reponse is.

God Bless

 

[Evangelizer]

I would like to see some of the better educated members here comment on whether anyone has ever examined the question of whether there are contradictions in Tradition.

I would not want a tautology in response. A statement like, “OF COURSE there are no contradictions – the Holy Spirit can not contradict Himself,” is uninformative.

Evangelizer

 

[guanophore]

Should Catholic “Tradition” be put forward as being of co-ordinate authority with God’s written Word, the holy Bible? Is Catholic “Tradition” actually part of the ‘canon’ of Scripture?

Sacred Tradition is the the Deposit of Faith given by Jesus to His Apostles. It was Sacred Tradition that produced God’s written Word, the Holy Bible. The canon of scripture was formed and promulgated by Sacred Tradition. The two are equal in Source (the HS) and Authority (Jesus).

Why was it not written therein, along with the canon of Scripture, as we know it today?

Why is the Authority of Sacred Tradition not included in the Canon? If I understand your question correctly, it is written. One example is 1 Thess. 2:15. However, I am sure the Apostles never conceived that the Scriptures would be separated from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church from which they sprang.

Correct me if I am wrong; but some Catholic “Tradition” is not even in the Catholic version of the canon of Scripture? Certain of your doctrines which are “Tradition” were not even in existence, until after the canon was established.

I am assuming you are distinguishing between tradition (customs) and Tradition (Sacred Teaching). It is true that our understanding of the one deposit of faith that occurred once for all time developes over time.

Exactly which doctrines, as officially held by the Catholic Church, are considered as “Tradition?” Can you give a comprehensive list? Even just three of the major ones which are officially “Tradition” to the Catholic Church would be helpful.

The Catechism is the best place to find these teachings. They are concisely explained and referenced with Scripture and the Fathers.

From what I understand; “Tradition” to the Catholic, is “the spoken word” and so I am trying to get a clearer picture of just what that is.

In the beginning, all of the Gospel was preached, not written. However, as time has passed, all of what was oral can now be found in writing in one form or another. Many of the Traditions are reflected in prayers, liturgy, creeds and other practices of the Church such as the Rubrics.

Because The Catholic Church Catechism specifically states:
then it must be important for us to be able to decipher exactly which doctrines are “Tradition?”

For Catholics it is not. Since we recognize both as equal, whether the Teaching is found in Tradition, or Scripture, or both is irrelevant. Both are equally authoritative streams that contribute to the Deposit of Faith.

The “depositum fidei” combined with the Catholic “Magisterium” apparently, are a “whole” in terms of “God’s Word;” (to the Catholic), and the Catechism also states: …
and therefore; it would be an important link in the chain of understanding, for non-Catholics to grasp better what the Catholic Church teaches on the questions of doctrine and Tradition, which I have just presented.

Thanks, in advance, to those who wish to contribute to this topic.

I think you are right on target with the Catechism!

 

[guanophore]

I would like to see some of the better educated members here comment on whether anyone has ever examined the question of whether there are contradictions in Tradition.

I would not want a tautology in response. A statement like, “OF COURSE there are no contradictions – the Holy Spirit can not contradict Himself,” is uninformative.

Evangelizer

Perhaps not informative, but completely accurate. If there appears to be a contradiction, then the disciple does not understand the Teaching properly.

 

[inthecloud]

The belief that the collection of Books included in the Bible as God inspired is a example of a Catholic Church Tradition.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…for non-Catholics to grasp better what the Catholic Church teaches on the questions of doctrine and Tradition.

Go buy a copy of the Catechism. It’s cheap, and they are sold in most bookstores. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are not a secret.

Joel

 

[DebChris]

Tradition is the Word of God passed down from the Apostles and safeguarded by the Magisterium through the power of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is the written Word of God that comes from Tradition. Both are intricately linked.

 

[davethecatholic]

Here’s a good start on “Tradition and the Living Magisterium”

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[SeanTom]

TRADITIONS AND SCRIPTURE

.

The word “tradition” comes from the Latin word meaning “to hand on”. It can be used in two senses. First, it can be used to refer to the PROCESS by which religious faith and practice are handed on from one generation to another. Thus we speak of ORAL tradition and WRITTEN tradition. Second, it can be used to refer to the CONTENT of what is handed on. Thus we speak of ESSENTIAL tradition and NONESSENTIAL tradition.

God revealed Himself to the prophets and the apostles not just for their sake, but for the sake of all people - even people not yet born. From this arose the need to transmit God’s word to others. The handling down of God’s word to other people became known as “Tradition” or better phrased as “oral Tradition”. Some of these “oral Traditions” were later recorded in writing. These writings became our Scriptures. Many people do not realize that large sections of the Bible began as oral Traditions. These sections were handed down by word of mouth for years before they were actually written down.

As to Scripture, the Gospel passages itself suggests that the Word was passed on orally for a long time before it was recorded. For example: Matthew says that after Jesus rose from the dead, the guards at the tomb were paid to say that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body while they were asleep. Matthew then adds, “this is the report spread around by the Jews to this very day” (Matthew 28:15 {TEV}. The words “to this very day” indicate the lapse of a considerable period of time between the original event and Matthew’s recording of it. A similar reference occurs in Matthew 27:8 (“That is why the field even TODAY is called the Field of Blood.”).

Only a portion of oral Tradition was recorded in the bible. Take the Gospel again, John concludes his Gospel saying “There are many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25). Also, in John 20:30, it states: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (His) disciples that are not written in this book….”. This important to remember because it shows that oral Tradition about Jesus continued in the church AFTER the Gospel was recorded. (Many faiths still believe if it is not in the bible, it is not important and should not even be considered). Also, 2 Tim 2:2 - “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well”.

In the Catholic Church, tradition is broken down into two categories: “Essential and Non-Essential” traditions. For instance, the tradition that Catholic priests can not marry is an example of a nonessential tradition. It can be changed if the Pope so desires. On the other hand, the Tradition concerning our stand against abortion is an example of an essential Tradition. It can never be changed. Ultimately, it is the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit that decides if a tradition is essential or nonessential. Non-essential traditions are usually established by the church for various reasons - THESE NON-ESSENTIAL TRADITIONS CAN BE CHANGED. ESSENTIAL Traditions are considered to come from those beliefs which were passed down to us by the Apostles, or other reputable witnesses, but not necessarily contained in the bible. For the most part, these APOSTILIC TRADITIONS are not otherwise contained in Scripture, but nevertheless, very important to our Catholic faith…

It is a fact that many other faiths condemn Catholics for including traditions in our faith (Ref Mat 15:3) instead of using the Bible ONLY as our reference in matters of faith. Perhaps if they understood the difference between essential and non-essential traditions, they would better see where we are coming from. I doubt if any of these criticizers have any idea of what the Catholic Church lists as essential and non-essential traditions - but they are quick to condemn us for even mentioning traditions in matters of faith.

Now please know that I am not finding fault of those who do not understand where we are coming from, but am only stating that we probably should do more in opening up our communications with others. so that they will have a better understanding of why we, as Catholics, respect the Traditions of the Apostles and those handed down to us by our church leaders. I do know, from personal encounters, that some Protestants use Mat 15:3-9 when they say that Catholics are wrong in using traditions as part of their faith. The word traditions, with a small “t” is taken strictly out of context in that passage, as it was used in the sense of “human traditions“ and not Apostolic.

 

[ryanoneil]

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

2 Thess. 2:15 - It was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Pwrlftr]

I find it interesting that Catholics often quote 2Thess2:15 in support of tradition but are unable to define what the traditons are that Paul referred to.

Anyway, is the Catholic position that the apostles knew and taught all the various beliefs your church now holds (immaculate conception, purgatory, treasury of merit, papal infallibiity, indulgences, etc) or does your church teach that maybe the apostles weren’t aware of each and every doctrine since doctrine develops over time?

 

[TOME]

Because this not a new question I am not surprised at the quality of the responding post so I hope I will not distract from them.

Again the answer to the question posted in this thread comes down to an understanding of the term “Tradition”. SeanTom give, I thought, a very good explanation that there are different types of “Tradition” as he named then “Essential” and “Nonessential”

For my protestant friends, when we Catholics speak of Tradition in relationship to Divine Revelation here we are talking about the essential tradition known as the “Apostolic Tradition”. These are the teachings that have come to us through the Apostles’ oral teachings passed on through the Church’s history under the guardianship of the succesors of the Apostles - the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome.

The Apostolic Tradition is rooted in the “kerygma” and there are ample references in the NT of this oral teachings being passed on through the Church prior to any written book of the NT and certainly well before the canon of scripture (which as was pointed out cannot be found in scripture). Again there have been plenty of references already given so I will not add any more.

Often, I read in threads such as this, the question. “What is Apostolic Tradition?” I think one can can say the essentials of Apostolic Tradition is expressed in the Creeds and Liturgy of the Church. Simply stated if you want to know what Apostolic Tradition is look at what is expressed in the Nicene Creed (this really is a “List” of the Apostolic Tradition) and celebrated in the Liturgy of the Eucharist - namely, the Eucharist is “Sacrifice” and “The Real Presence”.

The dogmas of the Church, rooted in the Apostolic Tradition that is proclaimed in our Creeds and Liturgy, state clearly what must be believed and the Doctines of the Church enflesh these dogmas through the teaching ministry given to the Church, exercised by the Church’s Magisterium and guarenteed to be true by Christ though the Holy Spirit.

I realize that this presents a problem for many reformed christians whose own ecclesiology rejects the authority of the Councils who produce the Church’s Creeds and whose sacramental theology rejects the Mass as Sacrifice and Real Presence which logically would lead them to reject the concept of Revelation coming to us through Scritpure and Apostolic Tradition.

I think that the rejection of the Councils and their creeds and the rejection of the belief that the Eucharistic Liturgy is both Sacrifice and Real Presence (Basic beliefs of both the Eastern Greek speaking Churchs and the Western Churchs of the Latin Rite) is also at the root why threads such as this tend to end up in circles - it’s hard to come to a common conclusion when there are two diameterically opposing premises). Still it will be interesting to see where this one goes.

 

[Protestant101]

The Apostolic Tradition is rooted in the “kerygma” and there are ample references in the NT of this oral teachings being passed on through the Church prior to any written book of the NT and certainly well before the canon of scripture (which as was pointed out cannot be found in scripture). Again there have been plenty of references already given so I will not add any more.

Often, I read in threads such as this, the question. “What is Apostolic Tradition?” I think one can can say the essentials of Apostolic Tradition is expressed in the Creeds and Liturgy of the Church. Simply stated if you want to know what Apostolic Tradition is look at what is expressed in the Nicene Creed (this really is a “List” of the Apostolic Tradition) and celebrated in the Liturgy of the Eucharist - namely, the Eucharist is “Sacrifice” and “The Real Presence”.

The dogmas of the Church, rooted in the Apostolic Tradition that is proclaimed in our Creeds and Liturgy, state clearly what must be believed and the Doctines of the Church enflesh these dogmas through the teaching ministry given to the Church, exercised by the Church’s Magisterium and guarenteed to be true by Christ though the Holy Spirit.

Thankyou; I appreciate the replies so far. In your post; it appears you are telling us that “Creeds and Liturgy” would consititute “essential” “Tradition;” and that the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, is one of these? In my posts to this topic; I am trying to find out what exactly Catholics mean by “essential” Tradition; which, as they put it, is equal to the written word of God.

Can we make a list, point by point here of what all these “creeds” and “liturgies” would be? And I would really appreciate finding all these somewhere in official Catholic teachings/writings. Where do they specifically say that “Sacred Tradition” is made up of such? I have looked some in the Catechism; but do not know where to look for sure.

 

[TOME]

Protestant101,
Hopefully this will help.
First the Creeds. I suggest that we use the Nicene Creed because of its later development than say the Apostles Creed.
If you go over each section of this creed you will find what the Church understands is its essential beliefs given to us originally by Christ when he taught his Apostles through the oral teaching of the Aopstles themselves. I hate to use a term like “outline” so I am going to say this are the starting points.

One thing about these creeds. I have read and been asked about their validity given they were not written until hundreds of years after the Apostolic Times. Part of the answer was the particular creed in "written " form wasn’t needed until the time it was produced. The older of the creeds, such as Apostles Creed, had its need in the missionary activity of the Church. When the Church was in its nascent stages she was a rather homogeneous group plus was still under the authority of living Apostles and disciples of Christ or thier immediate succesors. However, as the Chuch grew then a statement of common beliefs was needed (sort of like keeping everyone on the same page - so to speak).

Later, when heresies and disputes developed it became necessary for the Church to clearly state its beliefs, again in response to a particular heresy. But these beliefs were traditionally believed to come to us from the Apostles Teachings as handed on through the ministry of the Bishops.

But this were the liturgical life of the Church is also essential in understanding Apostolic Tradition. The liturgical life always was/is essential to the beliefs and teachings of the Church and often what was celebrated and held without question preceeded what was written in a creedal form. For example, consider our belief in the Trinity. There is no “Theological” pronouncement in any of the scriptures that the Trinity exist. But we know from the scriptures that the Church Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that we were baptizing before any of the Gospels and epsitles or Acts were written. It was an accepted belief and it was celebrated in the Church’s liturgy before written NT or Creeds or instructions such as the Didache.

So in order to also understand what the Chuch has always believed and basing this belief on the teachings of the Apostles it is essential to understand what the Church celebrates in its Liturgy.

Again this point is also a point rejected by many protestants because in their ecclesiology they see the Church rooted in Faith and the Word where as in the Catholic Church (Eastern and Western Traditions, i.e. Greek and Latin Traditions) our understanding of Church is rooted in not only of Faith and the Word but Sacrament as well. Without the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, there is no Church. And this is again expressed in the liturgy of the Church.

 

[jcrichton]

I am trying to find out what exactly Catholics mean by “essential” Tradition; which, as they put it, is equal to the written word of God.

Can we make a list, point by point here of what all these “creeds” and “liturgies” would be? And I would really appreciate finding all these somewhere in official Catholic teachings/writings. Where do they specifically say that “Sacred Tradition” is made up of such? I have looked some in the Catechism; but do not know where to look for sure.

***Hi, Protestant!

I understand your plight–I’m a born Catholic and many have attempted to convert me into their religious group…

Your concerns are being answered; but you can do deep research at www.advent.org;* www.ewtn.org; www.vatican.org… it is all there and free to study and download!

Here’s what John has to say about the Holy Scriptures and Traditions (though he never uses the term Traditions):

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)

John identifies his own writings as Jesus’ Teachings; yet, he reveals that there is much more that has not been written.

Another window into Traditions are Paul’s words as he speaks on his encounter with Jesus and how Jesus taught him about His ministry:

11 For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion: how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. 14 And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. 17 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. 18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ: 23 But they had heard only: He, who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned: 24 And they glorified God in me (Galatians 1:11-24)

If we look into Paul’s own narration of his encounter with Jesus (Acts 9:3-30; 20:21-25; 22:6-21; 26:12-18-23) we find that there is no mention of Jesus teaching Paul, even in an abridged version, about His ministry with the Twelve. Still, Paul went out and preached Jesus just as comprehensive and enthusiastic as those who lived His minitry years with Him!

I now ask you to ponder: Where did the non-Catholic Christians get their tradions/Traditions from? We know that there is only one Church that professes to have the succession of the Apostles, Peter being the first Pope; as such, no other Christian group can claim to have participated in a direct impossition of hands (1 Timothy 4:14), so while the Catholic Tradition is based on Biblical and historical experience, what is the basis of the non-Catholic Tradition/Teachings?

I am not seeking to upset your religious beliefs; I simply hope that you question both the Church’s origins and Teachings based on all facts including the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the Ancient Church Fathers, and the secular historical accounts; of course, it is only fair that you do the same in-depth study on the Protestan organizations.

God Bless!

Angel

**

 

[guanophore]

I find it interesting that Catholics often quote 2Thess2:15 in support of tradition but are unable to define what the traditons are that Paul referred to.

Anyway, is the Catholic position that the apostles knew and taught all the various beliefs your church now holds (immaculate conception, purgatory, treasury of merit, papal infallibiity, indulgences, etc) or does your church teach that maybe the apostles weren’t aware of each and every doctrine since doctrine develops over time?

The latter is the case. All of these doctrines existed in the beginning in “seed” form.

The Catholic Church is very clear on the Divine Deposit of faith, which part was written into the Scripture, and which was handed down orally. I agree with you, though, that the average Catholic does not.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101,
Hopefully this will help.

So in order to also understand what the Chuch has always believed and basing this belief on the teachings of the Apostles it is essential to understand what the Church celebrates in its Liturgy.

Again this point is also a point rejected by many protestants because in their ecclesiology they see the Church rooted in Faith and the Word where as in the Catholic Church (Eastern and Western Traditions, i.e. Greek and Latin Traditions) our understanding of Church is rooted in not only of Faith and the Word but Sacrament as well.

Thankyou once again.

I am trying to pay attention to people’s use of various words or phrases in the posts being made here. One thing that has caught my attention is use of the word “sacrament.” To explain my next question; I need to quote the Catechism briefly:

1084 “Seated at the right hand of the Father” and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. the sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.

My question:

What is the difference between “liturgy” and “sacrament?”

 

[Pwrlftr]

The latter is the case. All of these doctrines existed in the beginning in “seed” form.

Thanks for your reply

The Catholic Church is very clear on the Divine Deposit of faith, which part was written into the Scripture, and which was handed down orally. I agree with you, though, that the average Catholic does not.

But isn’t it true that what was taught orally (at least some of it) is not “traceable” (can’t think of a better term) back to the apostles?

 

[DebChris]

The latter is the case. All of these doctrines existed in the beginning in “seed” form.

The Catholic Church is very clear on the Divine Deposit of faith, which part was written into the Scripture, and which was handed down orally. I agree with you, though, that the average Catholic does not.

I would like to thank Sean Tom (#10) for defining Tradition from Latin etymoloy “to hand on.”
The faith in which we believe was handed to us through the preaching of the Apostles and those who came afterward.
Some devotions (traditions) specific to culture and time have come into the Church. These are the non-essentials that can be changed when they no longer express the Essential faith, the creeds in which we believe.
Seeds grow and our understanding of what Christ taught also grows over time through study and worship. The doctors of the Church have added their knowledge in order to help us more fully understand our own faith. We have the communion of saints, who through their lives reflect Catholic Christian teaching. The richness of the Catholic faith lies in its depth and knowing that no matter how much any one of grows in this knowledge we will never reach the bottom; we will never know everything there is to know about God.