Tradition traced back to apostles/associates or apostolic fathers?

[AaronJames]

Hello everyone,

Would someone here direct me to a discussion or two dealing with the Catholic stand on “Scripture Plus Tradition”?

Here are the specifics I’m looking for. It seems that the Catholic definition of “Tradition” is essentially teachings handed down by the apostles. To my understanding, the Catholic claim is that every single one of the current Catholic dogmas can be traced all the way back to either the apostles (or their associates and the Bible as a whole) or the apostolic fathers. They may not be dogmatized at the time, but those teachings are clearly taught by either the apostles or apostolic fathers.

Thank you.

 

[ibo]

Hello everyone,

Would someone here direct me to a discussion or two dealing with the Catholic stand on “Scripture Plus Tradition”?

Here are the specifics I’m looking for. It seems that the Catholic definition of “Tradition” is essentially teachings handed down by the apostles. To my understanding, the Catholic claim is that every single one of the current Catholic dogmas can be traced all the way back to either the apostles (or their associates and the Bible as a whole) or the apostolic fathers. They may not be dogmatized at the time, but those teachings are clearly taught by either the apostles or apostolic fathers.

Thank you.

I dont think it is that way.
The tradition is the interpretation of the Community up to today, 2000 years after. The Apostles did not details everything. But our interpretation with the Pope is in accordance with the Teaching of Jesus and His Apostles and in no way can contradict them.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have some blog articles that address some of this that might help.

The Eucharist IS Scriptural
Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory
What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
Tradition? No way!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Hello everyone,

Would someone here direct me to a discussion or two dealing with the Catholic stand on “Scripture Plus Tradition”?

Here are the specifics I’m looking for. It seems that the Catholic definition of “Tradition” is essentially teachings handed down by the apostles. To my understanding, the Catholic claim is that every single one of the current Catholic dogmas can be traced all the way back to either the apostles (or their associates and the Bible as a whole) or the apostolic fathers. They may not be dogmatized at the time, but those teachings are clearly taught by either the apostles or apostolic fathers.

Thank you.

Hi Aaron,
The RC view is this: God’s word is handed on authoritatively and normatively through the combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church.

The notion of Scripture and Tradition being in conflict is an artifact of the Reformation separation of the two and setting up ones interpretation of the Bible alone as the final rule of faith. It should come as no surprise that the results of such a method will differ from the content of the faith handed on by the combined process of Scripture and Tradition in the church =STC].

Tradition in the broadest sense is the transmission of the whole of the Christian Faith, including Scripture which itself is something handed down as such, in the church. Tradition is not just teachings handed down by the apostles apart from or other than those in Scripture. In a narrower sense Tradition is a mode of transmission other than by writing. Whether and what particular truths are contained in Tradition and not Scripture is a matter of considerable debate since the word of God is encountered and handed on fundamentally by the unified process of STC.

While it is true that some truths proclaimed to be dogmas are explicitly taught in scripture and/or the fathers, others are explications of truths implicitly contained in the deposit of faith handed on in the church and made explicit usually in the face of heretical opposition.

RC thinking stresses the organic relation between STC. The Bible was written by believers for believers, and, so, by members of the Church for members of the Church. The native hermeneutic environment for Scripture is the Church and the Tradition out of which the inspired Scriptures were composed.

 

[AaronJames]

While it is true that some truths proclaimed to be dogmas are explicitly taught in scripture and/or the fathers, others are explications of truths implicitly contained in the deposit of faith handed on in the church and made explicit usually in the face of heretical opposition.

Thank you.

Please elaborate on this: “explications of truths implicitly contained in the deposit of faith handed on in the church and made explicit usually in the face of heretical opposition.” What is “the deposit of faith”? Are those teachings or what? Is there evidence (i.e., in the apostolic writings) to demonstrate that “the deposit of faith” had been handed down?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Thank you.

Please elaborate on this: “explications of truths implicitly contained in the deposit of faith handed on in the church and made explicit usually in the face of heretical opposition.” What is “the deposit of faith”? Are those teachings or what? Is there evidence (i.e., in the apostolic writings) to demonstrate that “the deposit of faith” had been handed down?

The expression “deposit of faith” originates from St. Paul in 1 Tim 6:20-21: “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted parathekai] to you. Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge. By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith.” Also 2 Tim 1:13-14: “Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us." “Deposit” is another translation.

In RC usage “deposit of faith” refers accordingly to the word of God given to the Church to preserve and transmit with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So my point in the prior post was that God’s word is not just a collection of sentences or explicit statements of faith. It is all that God wished to give humanity that is encountered in the preaching of the Gospel stemming from the apostles at Pentecost: a life-transforming word (and the Word) which contains infinitely more than can be consciously and explicitly adverted to at any one time. In time, in the life, prayer and worship of the church, these infinite riches are probed and understood more deeply, inferences are drawn, what is implicit becomes explicit often, as mentioned, in the face of heretical denials.

 

[AaronJames]

The expression “deposit of faith” originates from St. Paul in 1 Tim 6:20-21: “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted parathekai] to you. Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge. By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith.” Also 2 Tim 1:13-14: “Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us." “Deposit” is another translation.

In RC usage “deposit of faith” refers accordingly to the word of God given to the Church to preserve and transmit with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So my point in the prior post was that God’s word is not just a collection of sentences or explicit statements of faith. It is all that God wished to give humanity that is encountered in the preaching of the Gospel stemming from the apostles at Pentecost: a life-transforming word (and the Word) which contains infinitely more than can be consciously and explicitly adverted to at any one time. In time, in the life, prayer and worship of the church, these infinite riches are probed and understood more deeply, inferences are drawn, what is implicit becomes explicit often, as mentioned, in the face of heretical denials.

So, you are saying–that which has been entrusted or that which is rich trust as per Paul refers “accordingly to the word of God given to the Church to preserve and transmit with the help of the Holy Spirit.” What, further, precisely is that “word of God” are you referring to? Is that teaching/doctrine or what ?

Thanks.

 

[Ignatius]

Hello everyone,

Would someone here direct me to a discussion or two dealing with the Catholic stand on “Scripture Plus Tradition”?.

You have a bit of a misunderstanding in that you do not appear to know that The New Testament itself, and the correct interpretation of same, are the Primary Sacred Tradition. Remember, The Church was founded decades and decades before even one word of the New Testament Scriptures were written. What eventually became the New Testament Scriptures was handed down from generation to generation as Sacred Tradition.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

So, you are saying–that which has been entrusted or that which is rich trust as per Paul refers “accordingly to the word of God given to the Church to preserve and transmit with the help of the Holy Spirit.” What, further, precisely is that “word of God” are you referring to? Is that teaching/doctrine or what ?

Thanks.

The word of God is divine revelation, all that God wished to make known to humanity and establish for the sake of our salvation. So, yes, it includes doctrinal truths (explicit and implicit), but much more. Fundamentally God is revealing himself to us so that we can become sharers in His divine nature (2 Pt 1:4). So the word of God is God’s revelation of Himself and His truth.

As it says in Dei Verbum #2 from Vatican II: “In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself.”

Divine revelation is inextricably tied to God’s saving plan, it is, in fact, the unfolding of the plan culminating in Christ. It is an utterly free, gratuitous gift of God and the root of all that He intended to be in the life and activity in the church.

 

[AaronJames]

You have a bit of a misunderstanding in that you do not appear to know that The New Testament itself, and the correct interpretation of same, are the Primary Sacred Tradition. Remember, The Church was founded decades and decades before even one word of the New Testament Scriptures were written. What eventually became the New Testament Scriptures was handed down from generation to generation as Sacred Tradition.

It seems that in one sense, depending on how one explains it, Scripture is part or one aspect of the Sacred Tradition as a whole. In another sense, it is separate when making a distinction from the oral aspect of the Sacred Tradition–passed down by the apostles. The article recommended to me helps explain this.
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp.

“Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).”

My question boils down to this: What is the nature of the Oral Tradition (outside the NT and the OT) that had been handed down by the NT apostles? Does it consist of teachings or what?

Thank you.

 

[AaronJames]

The word of God is divine revelation, all that God wished to make known to humanity and establish for the sake of our salvation. So, yes, it includes doctrinal truths (explicit and implicit), but much more. Fundamentally God is revealing himself to us so that we can become sharers in His divine nature (2 Pt 1:4). So the word of God is God’s revelation of Himself and His truth.

Are you saying that, ***outside ***the Bible, there were specific doctrinal truths–explicit and implicit–handed down by the apostles to the apostolic fathers and down through the centuries up to the current state of the Catholic Church?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Are you saying that, ***outside ***the Bible, there were specific doctrinal truths–explicit and implicit–handed down by the apostles to the apostolic fathers and down through the centuries up to the current state of the Catholic Church?

Much of the answer to this question is in my first post. Again, the fundamental encounter with God’s word, and so the fundamental and irreducible basis of theology, is through the unified process of STC. The separation of the Bible from its native hermeneutic environment such that the individual’s interpretation of it alone apart from Tradition and Church becomes the sole rule of faith is new to the Reformation and not found in the fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

So, for one to say I have my interpretation of the Bible alone giving me the revealed content of Christianity and anything that differs from the results of this interpretative process of mine is something added over and above Scripture or is something outside of the doctrinal content of Scripture and handed down separately as a doctrine whispered from father to father shows a separation of STC not known in the early church. The CC has never viewed Tradition as a hidden oral communication from the apostles to the fathers of full-blown doctrinal propositions.

As I mentioned, though, whether and what particular truths or practices are contained in Tradition and not Scripture is a matter of considerable debate since the word of God is encountered and handed on fundamentally by the unified process of STC. At Trent the CC refused to pronounce on the question.

However it should be born in mind that the conviction of Evangelicals that some or many of doctrines of the RCC (as well as many in the Orthodox Churches) are not in the Bible really translates to this assertion: What the RCC holds to be revealed and handed down through STC differs from the results of my interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2011.

Given the irreducible unity of STC as the foundation of faith, I nonetheless think there are certain practices that are not explicitly mandated in Scripture that are considered by the fathers and/or Councils to be of apostolic origin such as infant baptism.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

The New Testament itself, and the correct interpretation of same, are the Primary Sacred Tradition. Remember, The Church was founded decades and decades before even one word of the New Testament Scriptures were written. What eventually became the New Testament Scriptures was handed down from generation to generation as Sacred Tradition.

“Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. . . . The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).”

My question boils down to this: What is the nature of the Oral Tradition (outside the NT and the OT) that had been handed down by the NT apostles? Does it consist of teachings or what?

The most important aspect of Sacred Tradition derives directly from the fact the The Church came first and The New Testament came through The Church along with the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. So, the most important aspect of Sacred Tradition is correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Crumpy]

I have written on this subject exactly in the last several days. You can do a search on my posts, for comments in the context of a couple different threads.

This subject is explained completely in a book (315 pages) by Msgr George Agius titled Tradition and the Church.

Please forgive me, I’ve already spent so much time discussing this. Please refer to my thread on Agius book in the scripture forum. I think it’s still on the first page of threads as of this moment.

 

[annem]

I am a little surprised no one has mentioned how the Jewish beliefs were carried on into early Christianity. The Second Temple Jews believed that they had a tradition–an oral tradition–that was the equal to and as important as their written tradition. The vast majority of Jews believed this devoutly. Only the small number of Sadducees would have disagreed. The Sadducees held only to sacred scripture–although it was sacred scripture without a canon yet. It was only much later on that the oral traditions were written down.

So when Paul talks about passing on tradition, he is being very clear and using very technical terms, which would have been understand by any Jew, that he is passing on oral tradition. To say the least, his words would have been considered very important as oral tradition.

Thus it is no surprise that his letters, apparently from the earliest days, were kept, likely recopied, and, also very likely, read again and again to the early Christians. And of course a little later we have evidence that Paul’s letters were bundled together and treated as scripture and read aloud at Mass. Reading scripture at a service was also a carryover from Second Temple Judaism.

The Second Temple Jews had a high priest, a priesthood, and oral and written scriptures. Their religion was based the forgiveness of sins using sacred sacrifices at the temple. b sins.

And the early Christians–Catholics, actually–had a high priest, a priesthood, oral and written scriptures, and a Eucharistic sacrifice.

God bless, Annem

 

[AaronJames]

I have written on this subject exactly in the last several days. You can do a search on my posts, for comments in the context of a couple different threads.

This subject is explained completely in a book (315 pages) by Msgr George Agius titled Tradition and the Church.

Please forgive me, I’ve already spent so much time discussing this. Please refer to my thread on Agius book in the scripture forum. I think it’s still on the first page of threads as of this moment.

Thanks.

 

[AaronJames]

The most important aspect of Sacred Tradition derives directly from the fact the The Church came first and The New Testament came through The Church along with the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. So, the most important aspect of Sacred Tradition is correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

So, does the Oral Tradition (outside the Bible) contain teachings? It seems to me that your answer is no.

 

[AaronJames]

As I mentioned, though, whether and what particular truths or practices are contained in Tradition and not Scripture is a matter of considerable debate since the word of God is encountered and handed on fundamentally by the unified process of STC. At Trent the CC refused to pronounce on the question.

So, it is ***not ***the case that the apostles or apostolic fathers handed down teachings outside the Bible–down through the centuries all the way to the present RCC. Rather, whatever those truths/practices (in the form of doctrines) may be are a matter debate for the reasons you gave. Now, I think I got it.

 

[AaronJames]

I have written on this subject exactly in the last several days. You can do a search on my posts, for comments in the context of a couple different threads.

This subject is explained completely in a book (315 pages) by Msgr George Agius titled Tradition and the Church.

Please forgive me, I’ve already spent so much time discussing this. Please refer to my thread on Agius book in the scripture forum. I think it’s still on the first page of threads as of this moment.

I ordered Agius’ book in Amazon and am looking forward reading it. Thanks again.

Blessings to you!
Aaron

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

So, it is ***not ***the case that the apostles or apostolic fathers handed down teachings outside the Bible–down through the centuries all the way to the present RCC.

I think you may have it. You are right if you mean the CC has never viewed Tradition as a hidden oral communication (divorced from Scripture in a kind of parallel dogma universe) from the apostles to the fathers down to the present of full-blown doctrinal propositions.

Remember:

1. Tradition fundamentally is the transmission of the entire Christian life in Christ (Bible included) in continuity to the present stemming from the Apostolic community at Pentecost.
2. Tradition in the narrower sense is a mode of transmission other than writing. Christianity was handed on in this way beginning with the apostles’ preaching. When the NT was written by believers in the church for believers in the church and the canon gathered by the early church that process didn’t end. The writing of inspired scripture and discernment of the canon are themselves historically speaking acts of the Church of Christ and arise from the Tradition (#2) and become a part of the Tradition (#1) and inform it.
3. All of this is then the irreducible medium by which God’s word reaches its hearers, STC. The fathers and Councils taught that some elements of the Christian life are not found in Scripture. (I can give you lots of quotes if you are interested.) But they did not view them as secretly transmitted doctrinal statements. Mostly when they give specifics they are talking about practices (which may or may not have doctrinal implications), but their general statements suggest doctrine implicitly could be involved.

Rather, whatever those truths/practices (in the form of doctrines) may be are a matter debate for the reasons you gave. Now, I think I got it.

It is a matter of debate: (1) whether there are any doctrinal truths exclusively in Tradition and not at all in Scripture; (2) if so, what they might be. Most theologians tend to answer #1 in the negative. The RC has always taught that God’s word is transmitted by the irreducible unity of STC and all doctrinal truths are arise and are transmitted in that way. The word of God is so much more than can be consciously adverted to at any one time.

The fathers contend that certain practices like infant baptism (Augustine) or liturgical practices are of apostolic origin yet not mandated in the NT. The NT does leave the door open to this.