A
adolfo123
Guest
Where can i find all of the (T) Traditions of our faith…?
- Status
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
N
Nita
Guest
Most, if not all, are now part of the Church’s defined doctrines. As teachings would arise that went contrary to Tradition, the Church (Council of Bishops and/or Pope) would clearly define the specific truth in question.
A good book that gives the doctrines of the Church, with their historical background, is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott.
A good book that gives the doctrines of the Church, with their historical background, is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The Canon of the New Testament was passed down for hundreds of years before Pope Damasus I declared it in 382. Also, its correct interpretation is passed on as a living Tradition.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Did you in fact mean those things which are part of doctrine, as you emphasized the uppercase T? If so you will find many excellent catechisms (and of course The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself) although it sounds like you might be looking for a simple list rather than a narrative?
If you also mean the broader (lower-case t) traditions there are also lots of sources, I like a book called The Catholic Source Book, published by Brown-ROA, which describes lots of different devotional practices and such interesting arcana as the symbols the apostles, feast days and patronages of various saints, and other such. I doubt it would be possible to lift a one-volume book that covered all the traditions of the Church!
N
NHInsider
Guest
Actually both Scripture and Liturgy are parts of Tradition.The Liturgy
Scripture + Liturgy = Tradition
Tradition is the whole deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles. It is expressed and preserved in a unique way in the Scriptures, as well as in the Liturgy (although strictly speaking you cannot have Liturgy without Scripture) and in the teaching of the apostles and their successors.
A
Apophatic
Guest
Yes. The other parts of Tradition are found in the writings of the Church Fathers as well as the lived experience of the Church. St. Vincent of Lerins put it, “What has been believed by everyone, everywhere, from the beginning.”
Tradition = Scripture + Liturgy + Magisterium(Ex Cathedra, Church Councils, Ordinary)
Ordinary Magisterium = Local Councils, Papal Documents, Church Fathers, Lived experience
All of these must be considered as a cohesive whole. One cannot trump another nor can one contradict the others if taken in a proper understanding. The Ordinary Magisterim is the one we must be most careful with as each individual element is not infallible, however, when taken as a whole and in conjunction with the rest of Tradition, it is infallible as well.
L
LHN_Apologist
Guest
How can you be sure that this Tradition that was passed down for hundreds of years is infallible and did not, or could, get altered throughout the courseof history?
The Bible, as it is God’s written and inspired Word, is infallible. How can these mere human beings be infallible in their teachings about the faith.
P.S.
Before you jump to conclusions about me believing a word of this post. I am a mere Roman Catholic high school student who is looking for ways of answering Lutheran views on the Catholic Church. The process usually goes like this:
Code:
1) I am asked a question.
2) I answer the question (either from knowledge or research)
3) Anser is not found to be sufficient - I go to this foum and post posts :) like this one to get more ways of answering my Lutheran brothers and sisters.
P
promethius
Guest
I’m suprised no one has said it yet (or that i didn’t notice it). Start with the CATECHISM!
J
john_ennis
Guest
If God is able to speak infallibly through the writings of men (The Bible) even though they’re men, then He can surely do so through the words of the men who are the Bishops of His Church.How can you be sure that this Tradition that was passed down for hundreds of years is infallible and did not, or could, get altered throughout the courseof history?
The Bible, as it is God’s written and inspired Word, is infallible. How can these mere human beings be infallible in their teachings about the faith.
P.S.
Before you jump to conclusions about me believing a word of this post. I am a mere Roman Catholic high school student who is looking for ways of answering Lutheran views on the Catholic Church. The process usually goes like this:
- I am asked a question.
- I answer the question (either from knowledge or research)
- Anser is not found to be sufficient - I go to this foum and post posts
like this one to get more ways of answering my Lutheran brothers and sisters.
After all, Scripture calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth.”
Peace.
John
A
Apophatic
Guest
Hi, welcome to the thread.
There are two points to answer here, 1) Has Tradition changed , and 2) How is it infallible?
The first is easiest. A group of men wrote about the faith and the Tradition to explain, clarify, and refute errors. They are called the Fathers of the Church. They started writing in New Testament times, when some of the Apostles were still around and ended around the Dark Ages 600AD or so. Some of their books were even considered for inclusion in the Bible and were actually read out at Mass with the Scriptures. In the end, the Church decided to use only books that were written directly by an Apostle or his scribe. Thus Mark wrote from Peter, Luke wrote from Paul, while the rest are Apostolic.
We have the Didache, parts of which were written as early as 60AD, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians 80AD, seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch 107AD, Justin Martyr 155AD, Irenaeus of Lyons 177AD, as well as several dozen others, all before 200AD. These men were very touchy about the faith and vigorously attacked any change or heresy. Most of the early ones died as martyrs and many of the later ones too. If one looks at what they wrote then, and what the Church teaches today, you will not find a different Tradition being preached.
The Didache describes Baptism, a Mass, and other things. Clement writes on the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, not as a new thing but as something from the beginning. He was ordained a priest by Peter and was the 4th Pope after him. In this letter he speaks with Papal authority. Ignatius says to obey the Bishops as Jesus himself and that where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. He also says that Rome has the primacy, that nobody instructs Rome but that it instructs others. He calls the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus. Justin explains the Mass. Irenaeus says that the Bishops are the guardians of Tradition and that you can tell that he is not a heretic if he is in union with Rome, “the Church to which all others must agree.”
It should be noted that none of these men sat down to write out all of Tradition. They only spoke from Tradition as needed for their purpose. John, in the Bible, says that if all of the sayings and doings of Jesus (ie, Tradition) were written down, the books would fill the world.
The second point starts with the Bible. As from another post here, it says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of Truth not Scripture as some Protestants would have you believe. Remember, it is the Church that defined what was to be in Scripture in the first place. So how is this to be accomplished?
It is our place to interpret the Bible because we wrote it. It is ours, given by the Holy Spirit as a gift and unerringly proclaimed by a further gift of this same Spirit. Jesus told Peter and the Apostles that He would send the Spirit to guide them in all Truth and gave them authority to bind and loose. This is not out of the blue. This binding and loosing was a historical formula used by Rabbis to confer the authority to sit on the “Moses Seat” in synagogues and Teach. Acts of the Apostles says that the early Christians devoted themselves to the prayers and the breaking of the bread (Mass), and the teaching of the Apostles (Tradition) and fellowship (Church).
Further Bible evidence. Paul tells Titus to carefully choose bishops that are holy, will reliably hold to the teaching, and then pass on his teachings to them. He also says in a letter to “hold fast to the TRADITION I taught you whether by letter or BY WORD OF MOUTH.” In another letter he says that he wanted to come visit to answer their questions and teach but was unable to do so therefore he sent a letter instead. He obviously preferred oral teaching.
The sad truth is that EVERY Christian of ANY type has a Tradition of his own, it just a different Tradition. They deny it and say that the Bible is their sole source but it is easy to prove otherwise. Anabaptists like the Mennonites re-baptize. Others say that is a heresy. Some say infant baptism, others say heresy, only adults, others say just symbolic. Some say Eucharist is Christ, others that it is a channel for Christ, others yet that it is just a symbol. Who is right? Who has the right to say? They all claim it is a clear teaching of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!
I have argued mostly from the Bible for you since you are speaking to Protestants, so I will let the Bible have the last word. 2 Peter 1:20, “First of all know this, no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”. Protestants love Paul. Here is what Peter says about Paul’s letters. 2 Peter 3:16 “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
N
NHInsider
Guest
May I just step in here and say “Good for you, and welcome!” I’m so glad to hear from young people who are passionate about the Faith and willing to defend it! May the Holy Spirit give you the right words at the right time (Mark 13:11).
- Status