A
alms
Guest
Is Sacred Tradition equal to Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Church? Also, what is Sacred Tradition? Do the pope’s encyclicals fall within Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture within the Church? 
- Status
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Just marking this so I can see the responses.
K
kell0618
Guest
Yes, Tradition and Scripture are of equal importance.
Read the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth by Catholic Answers You’ll find more than you ever thought you would need to know about the subject!
God bless you,
Kelly
–Mark Shea
Read the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth by Catholic Answers You’ll find more than you ever thought you would need to know about the subject!
God bless you,
Kelly
D
Della
Guest
I think Mark Shea’s analogy a bit flawed. Sacred Tradition is both the written and oral word of God given by Jesus to the Apostles and handed down to us in the teachings of the Church and in the Bible. The Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition (Hebrew OT and the Church NT), The Bible, therefore, cannot be in opposition to Sacred Tradition any more than a child can claim it never had a mother. It’s really that simple.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
Divine Revelation is a trinity and mirrors God. It is three in one. All three are equal. There is only one Divine Revelation. It consists of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium. And like the Trinity, we have the source (Tradition), the word (Scritpture) and the living spirit (Magesterium). Sacred Tradition is the source of Revelation and is the teachings of Jesus passed on by the Apostles to the Bishops. Sacred Scripture is begotten of Tradition. The Magesterium proceeds from Tradition through Scripture.
Divine Revelation is a trinity and mirrors God. It is three in one. All three are equal. There is only one Divine Revelation. It consists of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium. And like the Trinity, we have the source (Tradition), the word (Scritpture) and the living spirit (Magesterium). Sacred Tradition is the source of Revelation and is the teachings of Jesus passed on by the Apostles to the Bishops. Sacred Scripture is begotten of Tradition. The Magesterium proceeds from Tradition through Scripture.
K
kell0618
Guest
I’m sorry. I did not mean to imply that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were in opposition. I was considering that the OP was figuring out the whole Sola Scriptura/Prima Scriptura vs. Scripture and Tradition issue. They are indeed equally important. Certainly the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth link can explain it a lot better than I can.
Kelly
A
alms
Guest
I asked the question because I don’t fully understand the relationship between Tradition, Scripture and the Magesterium and I’m just trying to understand it a little better. Your explanation above helps. This is the way I now remember it being taught. Thanks for reminding me.
So, if I apply this to a specific example, i.e., the Immaculate Conception, the early Christians were practicing there Catholic faith with the Tradition that Mary was born without sin. Subsequently the Magesterium declares via divine revelation the dogma of the Immaculate Conception based on 1.) the explicit Tradition of Christians and 2.) the implicit scriptural references like in the book of Luke.
Another example that comes to mind is the Assumption of Mary: 1.) the explicit Traditions of Christians understanding that Mary was assumed like into heaven similar to Elijah, Moses, and Enoch and 2.) the implicit references to the assumption of Mary in Scriptures like in the book of Revelation. And subsequently, the Magesterium via divine revelation declares the Assumption of Mary as dogma.
Is this generally correct?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
alms, it sounds like you have a fairly good understanding of Divine Revelation.
alms, it sounds like you have a fairly good understanding of Divine Revelation.
A
alms
Guest
Sometimes subjects escaped me (esp. the detials) and I just need to be reminded. That’s why I love this forum.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Tradition and Scripture (Tradition vs Scripture is a false dichotomy) must always agree. In fact the Sacred Scripture of the New Testament is a Tradition of the Church.Is Sacred Tradition equal to Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Church? Also, what is Sacred Tradition? Do the pope’s encyclicals fall within Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture within the Church?
God Bless
C
Cranch
Guest
With respect, I feel there are some inaccuracies or misstatements here. I will quote the Catechism to try and explain why. I feel it is important to be clear on this vital concept, so please do not consider the following to be “nit picking”. Firstly, God is the source of divine revelation, Tradition is not the source. From the CCC:
Secondly, Sacred Scripture is not “begotten” of Tradition. It has the same divine origin as Sacred Tradition:
So God, “the divine-wellspring” is the source of revelation. His revelation is transmitted via two distinct modes, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. About these two modes of transmission, the CCC teaches:
Finally, the magisterium in not a part of divine revelation nor is it a third mode of transmission of divine revelation. The magisterium is the authoritative interpreter of the deposit of faith:
The Word of God, the deposit of faith, is expressed in both Scripture and Tradition. As such, the magisterium’s relationship (interpreter) to Tradition is the same as it’s relationship to Scripture. Saying the magisterium “proceeds from Tradition through Scripture” as you do, seems to me to indicate two different relationships.
J
jpy15026
Guest
Doctrinal Development
John 16:12-13 (RSV)
12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
The word “Trinity” is *not *in Scripture. It is not there literally just like The word purgatory, is *not *in Scripture but they are there nevertheless. The Trinity was defined in the Catholic Council of Nicea in 325. This was well over two centuries after the last book of the New Testament was written. by the same process of “doctrinal development” as used in the Council of Jerusalem
A few examples: of “Doctrinal Development”,
Jesus Christ is GOD
This doctrine was defined at the Catholic Council of Nicea in 325.
Jesus Christ is one person with two natures
This was defined at the Catholic Council of Chalcedon in 451.
The Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son
This was defined at the Catholic Council of Constantinople in 381.
All of the above are results of “Doctrinal Development” as performed by the Catholic Church.
There is nothing “new” in doctrinal development as enacted by the Catholic Church. It is simply a deeper understanding of what has *previously *been revealed by divine revelation
The *last *prophet of public divine revelation was Jesus Christ and there will be no new public revelation revealed after Him.
Hebrews 1:1-2.
"In giving us His Son, His only Word (for He possesses no other), He spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word, and He has no more to say… because what He spoke before to the prophets in parts, He has now spoken all at once by giving us the ‘All Who is His Son’.
Doctrinal development is an on going learning process, and no doubt will continue until Christ comes again. Some theologians have postulated that it will go on forever, for the mysteries of an infinite GOD are also infinite. We must realize that the deeper we go into Scriptural understanding, the deeper we can go. It is likened to a bottomless ocean.
Non-Catholics reject doctrinal development simply because they know little or *nothing *of the various senses of Scripture, and they do not have the proper “rock foundation” *(“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Matt 16:18), *which is the Pope *and *the Magisterium, and most importantly the teaching of the Holy Spirit to provide divine guidance.
*“You are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the Chief Cornerstone. In Him the whole structure is fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord.” *
John 16:12-13 (RSV)
12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
The word “Trinity” is *not *in Scripture. It is not there literally just like The word purgatory, is *not *in Scripture but they are there nevertheless. The Trinity was defined in the Catholic Council of Nicea in 325. This was well over two centuries after the last book of the New Testament was written. by the same process of “doctrinal development” as used in the Council of Jerusalem
A few examples: of “Doctrinal Development”,
Jesus Christ is GOD
This doctrine was defined at the Catholic Council of Nicea in 325.
Jesus Christ is one person with two natures
This was defined at the Catholic Council of Chalcedon in 451.
The Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son
This was defined at the Catholic Council of Constantinople in 381.
All of the above are results of “Doctrinal Development” as performed by the Catholic Church.
There is nothing “new” in doctrinal development as enacted by the Catholic Church. It is simply a deeper understanding of what has *previously *been revealed by divine revelation
The *last *prophet of public divine revelation was Jesus Christ and there will be no new public revelation revealed after Him.
Hebrews 1:1-2.
"In giving us His Son, His only Word (for He possesses no other), He spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word, and He has no more to say… because what He spoke before to the prophets in parts, He has now spoken all at once by giving us the ‘All Who is His Son’.
Doctrinal development is an on going learning process, and no doubt will continue until Christ comes again. Some theologians have postulated that it will go on forever, for the mysteries of an infinite GOD are also infinite. We must realize that the deeper we go into Scriptural understanding, the deeper we can go. It is likened to a bottomless ocean.
Non-Catholics reject doctrinal development simply because they know little or *nothing *of the various senses of Scripture, and they do not have the proper “rock foundation” *(“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Matt 16:18), *which is the Pope *and *the Magisterium, and most importantly the teaching of the Holy Spirit to provide divine guidance.
*“You are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the Chief Cornerstone. In Him the whole structure is fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord.” *
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
I think Sacred Tradition is more important than Sacred Scripture.Is Sacred Tradition equal to Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Church? Also, what is Sacred Tradition? Do the pope’s encyclicals fall within Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture within the Church?
If a missionary went to africa, found a village, taught them from the Catechism, taught them about Communion, Confession, and how to pray, handed them a rosary and explained each mystery…assuming those people practiced what theyve learned, they could be saved without ever even touching the Bible. In fact, thats the way the Church has been saving people for the greater half of its existence.
However if a missionary priest went to Africa and handed them a Bible…well that doesnt mean anything. Not only is the Bible incapable of teaching people everything they need to know to be saved (tradition does that), it might just confuse them.
However, Sacred Tradition, in the forms of the Catechism or just the basic teaching authority of priests (provided they’re orthodox priests who know the Catholic faith) is sufficient in itself to save souls.
I also feel that Tradition holds more authority. Since the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.
I suppose techinically they’re equal…but I think tradition is more effective/useful.
I never started reading the Bible till I started reading theology, and that was somewhere between 12-13 years of age.
But im sure that from 12-downwards I was still just as Catholic as I am now. I just didnt know as many of the finer details.
In fact in regards to sin and innocence…I was a BETTER Catholic back then.
T
teachccd
Guest
Very well said. I never heard it put like this before and it really puts revelation in perspective. Thank you…
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
Cranch, I think you may have misunderstood me a little. I in no way intended to state that Divine Revelation does not come from God. If it didn’t we wouldn’t call it divine. All Divine Revelation does indeed come from God.
I was trying to draw a relationship within the scope of Divine Revelation itself. In that capacity, I show how that relationship mirrors the Trinity. Revelation from God was passed on orally to begin with - this is Tradition. Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition, those oral teachings (some of them) being written down. In this sense is it ‘begotten’. Though, like the Father and the Son, they are equal in importance and authority. The Magisterium, which is a part of Revelation comes down to us from Tradition (that is were we get the teaching of an authentic teaching authority) and comes also via Sacred Scripture (i.e. Matthew 16:18-19). In this sense the Magisterium comes from Tradition through the Scriptures - like the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Magisterium is a part of Revelation because it is the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to all truth through authentic interpretation of Tradition and Scripture. “It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (DV, 10)
Cranch, I think you may have misunderstood me a little. I in no way intended to state that Divine Revelation does not come from God. If it didn’t we wouldn’t call it divine. All Divine Revelation does indeed come from God.
I was trying to draw a relationship within the scope of Divine Revelation itself. In that capacity, I show how that relationship mirrors the Trinity. Revelation from God was passed on orally to begin with - this is Tradition. Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition, those oral teachings (some of them) being written down. In this sense is it ‘begotten’. Though, like the Father and the Son, they are equal in importance and authority. The Magisterium, which is a part of Revelation comes down to us from Tradition (that is were we get the teaching of an authentic teaching authority) and comes also via Sacred Scripture (i.e. Matthew 16:18-19). In this sense the Magisterium comes from Tradition through the Scriptures - like the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Magisterium is a part of Revelation because it is the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to all truth through authentic interpretation of Tradition and Scripture. “It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (DV, 10)
T
teachccd
Guest
I respectfully disagree. To say that Scripture is less important than Sacred Tradition is to say that this post is less important than me. This post generates from me and is as important as anything else that I ever have to say. While I agree that the Bible pulled away from its source, which is Sacred Tradition, is out of place I still hold that it is equally important. If you pull the skeleton from my body it doesn’t make my skeleton less important than my body…I think Sacred Tradition is more important than Sacred Scripture.
If a missionary went to africa, found a village, taught them from the Catechism, taught them about Communion, Confession, and how to pray, handed them a rosary and explained each mystery…assuming those people practiced what theyve learned, they could be saved without ever even touching the Bible. In fact, thats the way the Church has been saving people for the greater half of its existence.
However if a missionary priest went to Africa and handed them a Bible…well that doesnt mean anything. Not only is the Bible incapable of teaching people everything they need to know to be saved (tradition does that), it might just confuse them.
However, Sacred Tradition, in the forms of the Catechism or just the basic teaching authority of priests (provided they’re orthodox priests who know the Catholic faith) is sufficient in itself to save souls.
I also feel that Tradition holds more authority. Since the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.
I suppose techinically they’re equal…but I think tradition is more effective/useful.
I never started reading the Bible till I started reading theology, and that was somewhere between 12-13 years of age.
But im sure that from 12-downwards I was still just as Catholic as I am now. I just didnt know as many of the finer details.
In fact in regards to sin and innocence…I was a BETTER Catholic back then.
C
Cranch
Guest
Hello JMJ_coder. :wave:You have here pretty much simply restated your first post. Suffice it to say my complaints with it are the same. The quotation from Dei Verbum in no way validates your contention from your first post that the magisterium is a co-equal part of divine revelation with Scripture and Tradition. Revelation is the unchanging deposit of faith residing in these last two. The Holy Spirit guides the magisterium into a fuller understanding of revelation. That does not make the magisterium itself revelation.
Concerning Scripture, do you regard the Old Testament, acknowledged to be the Word of God before Christ ever became man, to be “begotten” of Apostolic Tradition? Pope Leo XIII in PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS wrote:
Did the magisterium define the canon of Scripture? Certainly. Does that mean Scripture, which has God for its author, is derived from Tradition? No. The Church seems always and everywhere to speak of Scripture and Tradition, as Leo did above, not Scripture from, of or by Tradition.
Finally, as you know, Jesus founded his Church quite some time before the Gospels were written. I don’t see how Matthew later recording this fact means the magisterium “comes also via Sacred Scripture”.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree on the finer points of this topic.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Jesus left nothing in writing. The earliest Christian writings are the Epistles of Paul, written a generation after the Crucifixion.
The Christian Gospel was spread by word of mouth. Those who were taught by the Apostles taught their successors. And that teaching was as valid as what was written down. “Tradition” is what was taught orally, usually written later by succeeding generations.
A good example of tradition at work is the veneration of the Virgin Mary. We know the early Christians venerated her from the time of the Apostles.
Another example of tradition is the opposition to abortion – that first appears in the Didache – a document compiled from the oral teachings of the Apostles.
The Christian Gospel was spread by word of mouth. Those who were taught by the Apostles taught their successors. And that teaching was as valid as what was written down. “Tradition” is what was taught orally, usually written later by succeeding generations.
A good example of tradition at work is the veneration of the Virgin Mary. We know the early Christians venerated her from the time of the Apostles.
Another example of tradition is the opposition to abortion – that first appears in the Didache – a document compiled from the oral teachings of the Apostles.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
But, if we want to look at good Thomistic theology, then Tradition and Scripture are not Revelation. Revelation is the communication of God revealing Himself and His plan. Tradition and Sacred Scripture are called Modes of Transmission of Revelation. They are not the Revelation themselves, but merely the vehicles which God uses. These two comprise the Deposit of Faith. The Magisterium, as you correctly noted, does not comprise of the Deposit of Faith, but is it’s authentic interpreter. But being intimately connected with Tradition and Scripture as it is, Revelation is not complete without it. Tradition and Scripture are useless and even dangerous without the Magisterium (as we have seen is other Christian groups). These three elements are each necessary. A good article on this was written by Father John Corapi.
I have mirrored my view of Revelation to that of the Trinity. I do this to show a very specific perfection in the way God chose to do things. However, due to my own limitations, I may not be presenting the idea as best as I can. I hope that this has made this view clearer, if not let me know.
That is probably my failings as a communicator.
My analogy is not 100% systematic Thomistic theology. There is a bit of mysticism with it, but not completely.
But, if we want to look at good Thomistic theology, then Tradition and Scripture are not Revelation. Revelation is the communication of God revealing Himself and His plan. Tradition and Sacred Scripture are called Modes of Transmission of Revelation. They are not the Revelation themselves, but merely the vehicles which God uses. These two comprise the Deposit of Faith. The Magisterium, as you correctly noted, does not comprise of the Deposit of Faith, but is it’s authentic interpreter. But being intimately connected with Tradition and Scripture as it is, Revelation is not complete without it. Tradition and Scripture are useless and even dangerous without the Magisterium (as we have seen is other Christian groups). These three elements are each necessary. A good article on this was written by Father John Corapi.
That is like asking if you believe Jesus to be begotten of the Father, even though they are both as old as eternity. Scripture is not begotten of Tradition in the sense that Tradition came first and Scripture came second (although this is the case of the New Testament canon). It is in the sense that part of the Tradition of the Church is Sacred Scriptures. It is that part of the Revelation that is written down.
I am not saying that Tradition is the ‘big brother’ of or better than Scripture. Tradition and Scripture are of equal weight. Just as the Father and the Son are of equal weight, equal importance.
Jesus founded His Church. He set it up with a hierarchy. This is part of Tradition. That is where we get the idea of the Bishops and Apostolic Succession. But it is reinforced and issued further through Scriptures. In that way does it proceed from Tradition through Scriptures - just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. And just as the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son, so is the Magisterium equal to Tradition and Scriptures.
I have mirrored my view of Revelation to that of the Trinity. I do this to show a very specific perfection in the way God chose to do things. However, due to my own limitations, I may not be presenting the idea as best as I can. I hope that this has made this view clearer, if not let me know.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
This has nothing personal to do with you, but this is one of my biggest frustrations in dialoguing. I have started a thread on this topic for those interested in discussing it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=138619Maybe we should just agree to disagree on the finer points of this topic.
- Status