Tradition and tradition

[cpayne]

I don’t think it is that simple. I see things the church is teaching that are not true, that are even in conflict with Catholicism. It is worthless to have something somewhere that is considered infallible if it is not effectively transmitted everywhere. I see the local DRE teaching things such as God is not personal, etc., and getting away with it. This is not “preserving the church from error” but the church teaching error. He stands in the place of a teacher of the church, like it or not.

Hi, Truthstalker. It seems here, however, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. How do false teachers invalidate what is true?

Besides, look at your post and substitute Scripture instead of Tradition: Wouldn’t you get exactly the same problem? What’s the use of having a God-inspired Sacred Scripture if so many of those teaching it do not transmit it “effectively” or accurately? Isn’t that a problem for all Christians, not just Catholics?

So it seems to me the problem of false teaching is exactly why a Tradition is necessary. As for what’s Tradition and what’s “tradition,” occasionally it takes time to sort things out, right? but you don’t dump the process of sorting things out because of the false mixed in with the assortment.

Your concern, however, is praiseworthy. The Scripture is clear: Teachers need to be careful, because they will bear the more stringent judgment.

 

[Bishopite]

“Church” has a broad meaning, too broad for this thread. Catholics strive to confine its meaning to adherents of what is now the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome. There are many Christians outside the Catholic Church who nevertheless are in the church. I would rather not get drawn into this argument because I think it is off the topic of this thread. Show me how it relates and maybe we can go somewhere with it.

What you falsely presume is that Catholicism is now somehow a different Church from the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Apostles creed. That is how you conveniently get around the historical truth. Yes there are Christians who are outside of the formal structure of the Catholic Church, yet are still in the Church are actually “Catholic.”

What the definition of “Church” is, relates to what is Tradition and tradition for if this “Church” can show itself as being established by Christ then it has the authority to recognize Tradition from tradition, wouldn’t you agree? Explaining what Tradition is presumes an authoritative hiearchy passing it down (paradosis 2 Thes 2:15) and if this hiearchy can show itself to be the established authority from Jesus Christ, then it has the “mind” of Christ; an example of an unwritten Tradition is the canon of Scripture.

I would say that you either falsely disregard the historical facts of which Church is the early Church, established from Christ or you accept pieces of the historical truth and attempt to split the Catholic Church of the past with the Catholic Church of the present, which just can’t be done. Doing either of these makes Tradition vs tradition something that can’t be known because you have taken away the proper authoritative structure established by Christ Jesus which properly protects sacred Apostolic Tradition and which warns the flock of traditions of men.