The difference between Tradition and tradition

[dcdurel]

However, if we are talking about “saving truths” and not all revealed truths, then I would argue that all saving truths are found in the Scripture as well as Tradition and would reject that statement that all saving truths are ONLY found in Tradition.

The Catechism teaches:
75. "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."
Notice this Gospel was refering to the Gospel the apostles preached… It does not refer to the ones that some of them wrote.

This is one time the Church clearly says “all saving truths” and “moral discipline” are ALL contained in Tradition.

The Catechism continues
78. "This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.** Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.**”
This is the **second time **in the Catechism that Church says, “all she believes” is handed down in Tradition. But again, the purpose of the Church is to prolcaim the Gospel, that is “saving truth” and “moral discipline”.

The Catechism continues:
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit . It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

This is the third time the Catechism clearly teaches that the whole Gospel Jesus taught was handed down completely and entirely in Tradition.

Then in p 126 the Chruch teaches:
3. The written Gospels. **“The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, **either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

Notice that not “all”, but only “certain of the many elements”, of Tradition were written in the Gospels. Thus, the Gospels clearly do NOT contain all the teachings of Jesus, whereas The Church teaches Tradition does contain all these teachings.

One could argue that the rest of these teachings are found in the other writings of the NT. Except that the rest of the NT contains even less of the direct teachings of Jesus, and it is more concerned with salvation history, and the problem of those who wanted to follow the ceremonial law, than it is concerned with transmitting the teachings of the Gospel.

You said that there are no direct teachings about the Eucharist in Scripture, but I am afraid that is manifestly false. The institution of the Eucharist is clearly portrayed in the Gospels and John’s discourse on the Bread of Life in Chapter 6 doesn’t leave much room for doubt.

It leaves extreme room for doubt. That is why Protestant denominations cannot agree on these teachings at all. Notice in Matthew chap 26:
27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. "

Jesus did not say that this blood of the covenant, also contained His whole and entire living Body, that is His eyes, ears mouth, toenails, and that this body could see and hear the apostles, and it contained His living soul, His entire and complete Divinity, and was a source of Grace which would free them from the slavery of sin.
Yet, this is what Tradition teaches.

The bible only says that it is the cup of His blood, whatever that means. For it certainly looked and tasted like wine. The bible contains no explanations.

Thus, the bible is entirely incomplete. It contains no explanations of His teachings. Tradition does contain explanations. And if these explanations come entirely from a deeper penetration by the Church into the basic Tradition handed down, these explanations become part of Divine Tradition.

And of course we can find other verses that are in accord with the Tradition handed down on the Eucharist. But, if we did not know the Tradition, we could NEVER elucidate the correct teaching, because the bible is incomplete when it comes to the teachings of the Gospel. Thus many teachings of Tradition are not in the bible, either explicitly or implicitly.
The bible is complete when it comes to salvation history. It is not meant to proclaim the Gospel, but only nourish and illuminate some teachings of the Gospel. The main purpose of scripture is salvation history.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Just curious, have one of you come from a Protestant background ?

 

[Katholish]

dcdurel,

Why does the the Word of God, transmitted through men, have to be inspired?
If I, as a religion teaches, teach a class of children that Jesus is both God and man, is that the Holy Spirit moving me to teach what He wants taught and only what he wants taught, or is that simply me obeying God’s command to hand down His teachings that He handed down to the apostles.

It is only inspired in its original transmission. (I did state that earlier). There is no way for a man to produce the Word of God without inspiration, ergo, everything that is the Word of God which was originally received from men must be inspired.

The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is inspired. The Church does not call Tradition “inspired”.

The Church does call Tradition inspired. The Council of Trent defined it as such in the Decree on the Canonical Scriptures during session IV. I have already quoted the text here and even explained the original Latin.

I think the difference is that the content of Tradition comes from Jesus.

Only a part of Tradition comes from the original preaching and life of Christ. Some of Tradition is from the subsequent preaching of the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…as defined by Trent.

So again, I still have not found a single Church teaching the defines Tradition as inspired. The reason the Church defines scripture as inspired, is because their is no way at all to know if it the word of God unless the Church defines it as inspired.

Trent, and the reason Tradition would have to be defined as inspired is because otherwise the original teaching of the Apostles in these regards could not be called the Word of God. You would either have to change the definition of Divine Tradition or deny that it is the Word of God.

The teachings the apostles handed down and taught to the people, and to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church, were not inspired, but they were and are certainly the Word of God. The Gospel that St. Paul taught and preached was certainly the Word of God.

Either something is the Word of God or it is the word of man. Unless God Himself spoke it, the word would have to be inspired by God to be His. The above quote cannot be true.

Jesus did not say that this blood of the covenant, also contained His whole and entire living Body, that is His eyes, ears mouth, toenails, and that this body could see and hear the apostles, and it contained His living soul, His entire and complete Divinity, and was a source of Grace which would free them from the slavery of sin. Yet, this is what Tradition teaches.

Neither Scripture nor Tradition explain all of this explicitly. Both contain it implicitly, and the logical implications have been drawn out and clarified by the Church in time.

because the bible is incomplete when it comes to the teachings of the Gospel. Thus many teachings of Tradition are not in the bible, either explicitly or implicitly.

I have to be frank, this sounds like heresy. Depending on the intention behind “incomplete” it probably isn’t, but it seems to come dangerously close. I also feel the need to reaffirm that the Church has never defined whether or not any truth of the Faith cannot be found in Scripture at least implicitly. I would be careful how strongly you assert your position that many teachings are not even implicitly in the Bible.

Hiskid1973,

Just curious, have one of you come from a Protestant background ?

Not I.

 

[dcdurel]

Katholish wrote:

The Church does call Tradition inspired. The Council of Trent defined it as such in the Decree on the Canonical Scriptures during session IV. I have already quoted the text here and even explained the original Latin.

The passage from the Council of Trent you were referring to was
from the Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures session iv.
Here is the passage you quoted:

The council is aware that this truth and teaching are contained in written books and in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from Christ himself or that were handed on, as it were from hand to hand, from the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so have come down to us.

Here is the translation I got, it was from the EWTN website. The same as yours except that is does not use the word inspired, but “the Holy Ghost dictating”
instead of the word “inspired” that you had in your translation.

“It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand”.

I was constantly thinking of the truths and rules that the apostles learned from Jesus. Since Jesus is God, everything He said was the Word of God. It did not have to be inspired, because since He is a Divine Person, the Holy Spirit does not have to guide Him and dictate to Him the Word of God. Thus what Jesus taught and preached was NOT inspired, but it was the Word of God, since He is God.

The distinction is that **some **of the Tradition the apostles learned was from the Holy Spirit. This was fortold by Jesus, who said to the apostles, that He would send the Holy Spirit, who would “teach you all things.”
That could refer to, for example, knowledge of which books of the scripture to be written were to be considered inspired, since these had not yet been written at the time Jesus ascended into heaven. It could also refer to a deeper penetration into what Jesus had already taught the apostles, in light of the events that took place after He taught them.

I will quote you as to the original latin in the Council of Trent:

The original Latin phrase is actually Spiritu Sancto dictante which literally means “dictated by the Holy Spirit”.

This was the translation I had, which did not use the word “inspired”.

Thus, when the Holy Spirit taught the apostles “all things”, He could have done so by literal dictation, or even by giving them understanding of certain truths. Either way, the Church uses the term “dictated by the Holy Spirit”, to describe that the apostles were taught part of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit, and not by Jesus alone.

 

[dcdurel]

Thus, you are correct, if you want to translate that term “dictated by the Holy Spirit”, in the broader sense, then SOME of the teachings the Apostles learned from God were “inspired”, since they came from the Holy Spirit.

And I am correct in that the Word of God that Jesus taught directly to the apostles was NOT inspired, since it did not come from the Holy Spirit, but directly from Jesus. Of course, since it is the Word of God, it is without error

But, it seems in practice, that even though the Holy Spirit dictated some of the sacred Tradition to the apostles, the Church does not normally use the term “inspired” to refer to sacred Tradition. Or at least the english translations of Church teaching don’t use that term, except for the Coucil of Trent translation that you used. But, even the Latin version of the Council of Trent, did not use the latin word for inspired, but used the phrase “Spiritu Sancto dictante”, which means dictated by the Holy Spirit. It did not use the latin term for inspired.
But the Church does have a latin term for inspired. For example in Dei Verbum of Vatican II, the Church uses the term “inspiratis libris” to refer to the “inspired books” of the bible.
** Thus it is confusing to Christians to use the term “inspired Tradition”, when the Church does not use that term, in latin, but uses the phrase, “dictated by the Holy Spirit”, which some translation loosely translated as inspired. **

Inspired can mean dictated by the Holy Spirit, but it usually means more than just dictated.
Thus the Church says the scriptures are inspired because, in Dei Verbum, “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”
Some is dictated, and some is not. Thus, in certain cases, the Holy Spirit moved them to write certain historical events that they already knew about. In this case the scriptures were not dictated.

Unless I see where the Church uses the latin word for inspired, to refer to Tradition, I don’t think we should begin calling Tradition “inspired”, even though some english translations use that term because of a loose translation.

Does all sacred Tradition come from God? Of course, otherwise it would not be called sacred tradition, or Tradition, with a capital T. Thus ALL Tradition is the Word of God. It all comes directly from God, either directly from Jesus or DICTATED, not inspired by the Holy Spirit. In latin the Church uses the term “dictated”, not inspired.
Since it all comes directly from God, it does not have to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. It already IS the Word of God.
Since much of scripture is simply historical facts or narratives, we have to have the authority of the Church, which was informed by Tradition, to know which historical writtings are the Word of God and which are not. There is no other way to know for certain which books truly are inspired.

The point I am always trying to make is that faith and salvation comes from what is heard (TRADITION) NOT from what is written. Thus faith and salvation come from what is handed down in Tradition, NOT from scripture. Scripture itself is a witness to these facts. As St. Paul writes, “faith comes from what is heard”. And as Jesus taught in Mark 16:15,16, salvation comes from believing what is preached. (Tradition) The primary purpose of Sacred Tradition is to teach the Gospel and make available its fruits. The primary purpose of scripture is to convey salvation history, which is then useful as an aid to teaching the Gospel.

 

[Katholish]

Or at least the english translations of Church teaching don’t use that term, except for the Coucil of Trent translation that you used. But, even the Latin version of the Council of Trent, did not use the latin word for inspired, but used the phrase “Spiritu Sancto dictante”, which means dictated by the Holy Spirit. It did not use the latin term for inspired.

We are obviously now on a matter of language more than theology, but since I had to do a fair bit of study on the term for my thesis, I can point out that “Spiritu Sancto dicante” was the official Latin phrase for inspiration, and the term inspiratio wasn’t used until much later. Leo XIII seems to have been significant in the transition, but when Trent occurred, this was the phrase used to describe the kind of inspiration that occurred with the authors of Sacred Scripture. It is not a broader term, but actually a technical term.

And I am correct in that the Word of God that Jesus taught directly to the apostles was NOT inspired, since it did not come from the Holy Spirit, but directly from Jesus. Of course, since it is the Word of God, it is without error

That seems an odd distinction to make though and begs a question, when the Gospel writers quote our Lord verbatim, are those words inspired? Using your logic, it would seem that you must say no, but I am curious.

Thus the Church says the scriptures are inspired because, in Dei Verbum, “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” Some is dictated, and some is not. Thus, in certain cases, the Holy Spirit moved them to write certain historical events that they already knew about. In this case the scriptures were not dictated.

Inspiration means the same thing for Tradition as it does for Scripture. Even though Trent elsewhere refers to Scripture as inspired (Spiritu Sancto dicante), the Church has has not understood this phrase to mean a literal dictation. The Holy Spirit most likely used the Apostles during their preaching in much the same way as the sacred authors. Not only supplying content, but the actual impetus to preach, but allowing them to use their own respective styles and as such the Apostles would have remained real human authors of their speech.

 

[dcdurel]

We are obviously now on a matter of language more than theology, but since I had to do a fair bit of study on the term for my thesis, I can point out that “Spiritu Sancto dicante” was the official Latin phrase for inspiration, and the term inspiratio wasn’t used until much later. Leo XIII seems to have been significant in the transition, but when Trent occurred, this was the phrase used to describe the kind of inspiration that occurred with the authors of Sacred Scripture. It is not a broader term, but actually a technical term.

In Timothy St. Paul says all scripture is inspired. The bible never says Tradition is inspired. Thus inspiration is not some new term.

I don’t think the Church had a clear definition of inspiration before Vatican II.
And Vatican II clearly teaches that inspiration of the scriptures does NOT have to be dictated, though it can be.

Notice this quote from Vatican I, which uses the words “dictation” and “inspired” in the same chapter 2 on Divine Revelation:

**5. **“Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in
written books and
unwritten traditions,
which were
received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself,
or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit,
and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us [16].
**6. **The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
7. These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical
not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
but because,
being written under the **inspiration of the holy Spirit, **
they have God as their author,
and were as such committed to the church.”

Notice that dictation of the Holy Spirit refers to both scriptures and some of Tradition (that part that did not come from Christ, but came from the Holy Spirit)
The Church could have used the word “inspired”, but did not.
Notice paragraph 7, here the Church, in referring ONLY to scripture, did not use the words “dictation of the Holy Spirit”, but used the word inspired.

This again is my point. The Church uses the word “inspired” to refer to scripture.
The words “dictated by the Holy Spirit” are broader, because they can refer to Tradition that the Holy Spirit taught the apostles. I have never seen anywhere that the Church anywhere uses the word “inspired” to refer to Tradition. It does say Tradition is the word of God.
It is an article of faith that we must believe all Scripture is inspired.
**There is no article of faith that says we must believe all or even some of Tradition is inspired. **
Dictated yes, inspired no.

So again, it is very confusing to use the term “inspired Tradition” when neither the bible or the Church use that term, and to say that the Church meant “inspired” when it spoke of that Tradition dictated by the Holy Spirit, is going a little too far.
Because it goes beyond the terminology used by the Church
Lets stick to the terminology used by the Church.

 

[dcdurel]

I said that the word of God that the apostles learned from Jesus was NOT inspired, because it did not come from the Holy Spirit, but directly from Jesus. Of course it is the Word of God, since it came from Jesus.

you wrote

That seems an odd distinction to make though and begs a question, when the Gospel writers quote our Lord verbatim, are those words inspired? Using your logic, it would seem that you must say no, but I am curious.

In the Gospels of course they were inspired, because the Holy Spirit moved them to write those words. But when Jesus taught those words to the apostles they were NOT inspired. When the apostles handed down those teachings to their successors, they were NOT inspired.

Inspiration means the same thing for Tradition as it does for Scripture.
Even though Trent elsewhere refers to Scripture as inspired (Spiritu Sancto dicante), the Church has has not understood this phrase to mean a literal dictation. The Holy Spirit most likely used the Apostles during their preaching in much the same way as the sacred authors. Not only supplying content, but the actual impetus to preach, but allowing them to use their own respective styles and as such the Apostles would have remained real human authors of their speech.

Again, the bible uses the word “inspired” to refer to scripture, never tradition.
Thus it is not a new word the Church never heard of.
The Church uses the word “inspired” to refer to scripture.
The Church never uses the word “inspired” to refer to Tradition.

To assume “dictated by the Holy Spirit” means the same as inspired is a little far fetched, and is not in accord with the terminology used by the Church.

There is NO reason that the Word of God has to be inspired to be the Word of God. The idea that some teaching has to be inspired to be the Word of God, seems to come from Protestants, who almost reject anything that is not inspired.

Jesus taught the Gospel. It was the Word of God. It was not inspired.
St. Paul taught the Gospel. It was the Word of God. It was not inspired. Yet, he said:
“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel** I preached to you**, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.“ 1 Corinthians 15:1-3*(NIV)

Thus again, salvation comes from believing the Gospel that was preached, not written. Thus salvation comes from believing the Gospel handed down in Tradition.
Jesus said the same thing;
“He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
Again, salvation comes from believing the Gospel that was preached (Tradition). It did not come from believing what was written (scripture).

Even when the Popes teach infallibly, they are not inspired directly, but only prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

Now, if you want to assign everthing the Holy Spirit moves men to teach as being inspired, then, that is true, as they certainly can be inspired by the Holy Spirit to do and teach certain things. I could be inspired to be writing these things. I don’t know.

But, we cannot use that sense in the same sense that the Church uses the term to refer to scripture, which has the Church’s authority behind it.