'Tradition' examples - help!

[Elzee]

When we say the Catholic church relies on the Bible and Sacred Tradition, can someone help me with examples of what these ‘Traditions’ are? I’m very familiar with the example of the canon of Scripture being one of these ‘Traditions’ (i.e. - there is no inspired table of contents for the Bible), but I haven’t come across any other examples of ‘Sacred Tradition’ the church holds to that has been handed down orally during the last 2000 years. (After listening to Jimmy Akin a couple weeks ago, I think he said he doesn’t use the concept of the ‘Trinity’ and the ‘Incarnation’ as examples of ‘Tradition’ since these are eluded to in the Bible. After he said this, I really couldn’t come up with any others!) Thank you!

 

[jimmy]

Elzee:

When we say the Catholic church relies on the Bible and Sacred Tradition, can someone help me with examples of what these ‘Traditions’ are? I’m very familiar with the example of the canon of Scripture being one of these ‘Traditions’ (i.e. - there is no inspired table of contents for the Bible), but I haven’t come across any other examples of ‘Sacred Tradition’ the church holds to that has been handed down orally during the last 2000 years. (After listening to Jimmy Akin a couple weeks ago, I think he said he doesn’t use the concept of the ‘Trinity’ and the ‘Incarnation’ as examples of ‘Tradition’ since these are eluded to in the Bible. After he said this, I really couldn’t come up with any others!) Thank you!

The Assumption of Mary, and the Marian doctrines are. The Trinity is a tradition in its entirity. There is no where that says that Jesus is fully man and fully God in one person, in the bible. That is a Tradition.

 

[Elzee]

Are there any writings from the early church Fathers on the Marian doctrines? (Or do you know where I can look up these writings and check for myself?) Thank you!

 

[jimmy]

Elzee:

Are there any writings from the early church Fathers on the Marian doctrines? (Or do you know where I can look up these writings and check for myself?) Thank you!

Irenaeus talks about Mary as the New Eve, so do Justin and Tertullian. Here is a quote from Irenaeus. Justyn and Tertullian say basically the same thing.

1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,–was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man.(5) For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness(6) (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.[Against Heresies BookV Chapter XIX]

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”(2) But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,”(3) inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,(4) and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.(6) For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.(7) And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.”(8) For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,”(9) and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die.(10) Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. [Against Heresies Book III Chapter XXII]

The councils talk about Mary as a perpetual virgin and the seventh council anathematized those who rejected the veneration of Mary and the saints. I am not sure what the other Church Fathers say.

 

[Genesis315]

The fact that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is a Tradition. We wouldn’t know if it was authentic or not without Tradition. In a sense, when the Church determined what books were in the canon, she judged them in light of Tradition. The Bible itself is part of Tradition.

 

[dcdurel]

Just about any basic teaching of the Catechism, or of the Baltimore Catechism, if you want to get to the very basics are handed down in apostolic Tradition.

The Trinity is certainly a teaching of apostolic Tradition. Sure parts of it are alluded to in scripure, but it is not clear and explicit in scripture. For example, no where does scripture explicitly say the Holy Spirit is God, the same God as the Father. Yet this has always been a Church teaching.
Scripture seems to imply that Jesus if not fully God, because He progressed in wisdom, because He said He did not know when the world would end, the Father is greater than I, etc.
But the Church teaches that Jesus is God, the same God as the Father and the Holy Spirit, because that is the teaching handed down in apostolic Tradition, no matter what the Scriptures seem to say.

Another explicit Church teaching is that the sacraments are affected by the Holy Spirit. For example, the apostolic tradition is that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is found no where in scripture. Yet it has been handed down in apostolic Tradition, the Church fathers write about it, and it is in the catechism today.

The sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ. That is a teaching of apostolic Tradition. The fact that Jesus instituted Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession may be found in scripture, but the others certainly cannot be found clear and explicit. In fact, the nature of baptism is not clear from Scripture. John Henry Newman, the Catholic convert spent years studing scripture before he accepted the fact that we are first saved when we are baptized. Because the bible is not clear and explicit on the matter. The Church has always had the correct teaching because it was handed down in apostolic Tradition.
The sacrament of confirmation, what it does and how to administer it is found no where in scripture. All the early Christians knew about it, because it was handed down in Tradition.

You can take almost any clear teaching in a basic Catechism and this teaching is NOT found clear and explicit in scripture. For every teaching we think is clear in scripture, we can find where scripture seems also to teach the opposite. That is why Protestants can’t agree on any teaching. The early Christians knew these teachings because they were handed down in apostolic Tradition, not because they studied scripture and came up with the teachings.

Since these teachings of apostolic Tradition came from the apostles and the apostles learned them from God, then the teachngs of apostolic Tradition, as defined in the Catechism, are the WORD OF GOD. Thus the teachings in the Catechism are the Word of God just as much as scripture is the word of God.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Elzee:

When we say the Catholic church relies on the Bible and Sacred Tradition, can someone help me with examples of what these ‘Traditions’ are? I’m very familiar with the example of the canon of Scripture being one of these ‘Traditions’ (i.e. - there is no inspired table of contents for the Bible), but I haven’t come across any other examples of ‘Sacred Tradition’ the church holds to that has been handed down orally during the last 2000 years. (After listening to Jimmy Akin a couple weeks ago, I think he said he doesn’t use the concept of the ‘Trinity’ and the ‘Incarnation’ as examples of ‘Tradition’ since these are eluded to in the Bible. After he said this, I really couldn’t come up with any others!) Thank you!

Anything that is not Explicit in the Scriptures is guided by the Apostolic Tradition even though it may be Implicit in the Scriptures.

 

[JimG]

What is in Tradition that isn’t in Scripture?
Nothing. And Everything.

Most if not all doctrines are in scripture at least implicitly.
So what is in Tradition? Nearly everything, from the canon of the Scripture, to the relative importance of various doctrines, to the way we understand Faith and the Sacraments, to the way we celebrate and understand the Mass.

Hand out bibles to a thousand uncatechized persons with no knowledge of Christianity. Will they all, in reading the bibles, come to the exact same conclusions about doctrine? No, because they have no Tradition.

All preaching is preached from one’s Tradition. Even Baptist preaching, or Methodist preaching. Does the Scripture say he should preach on this particular passage instead of that one? Emphasize this book of the bible rather than that? Emphasize this doctrine rather than another? No. Any preacher preaches from his own Tradition. Otherwise, he would have nothing to do but hand out bibles.

Tradition is simply the teaching of the Apostles handed down across the centuries. Some of it was written in scripture, but not in a way that would suffice as a doctrinal text.

 

[Elzee]

Thank you all for all of your help. I’ve learned so much on this Forum.

 

[mayra_hart]

. The Word of God is Transferred Orally

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.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word. Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.” the bible confirms that not everything jesus said and did is recorded in scripture(john 21:25) and that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached word of god(1cor 11:2,1 pet1:25).