Tradition?

[Perplexity]

Catholics often appeal to Sacred Tradition in support of various Catholic beliefs. But, I don’t think a lot of people realize just what Sacred Tradition is supposed to be, and I think illuminating this will greatly advanced dialogues.

Roman Catholics believe that Sacred Tradition, along with Sacred Scripture, form a deposit of Faith. [1] This deposit, containing all of God’s public revelation, ceased accumulating any new revelation at the death of the last Apostle. [2] So, whatever is in this deposit was placed there before the last Apostle died.

What I want this thread to be about is whether there is any verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.

If you want to know about the contents of Scripture, you can open up a Bible. But, if I want to know about the contents of Tradition, what source can I look to? Whatever it is, (assuming there’s just one), it must predate the death of the last Apostle.

[1] Dei Verbum, Chapter 2, n. 10, “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.”

CCC # 84: “The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church.”

[2] Pope Pius X condemned the proposition that “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” in his Lamentabili Sane, n. 21.

 

[JD27076]

Well, there are many. There is Church History, what the Apostles taught, what the Pope Taught, etc. I believe we read the Didache too. We believe Sacred Scripture AND Tradition comes from ONE source. The Divine Revelation from God. It is impossible for them both to contradict each other because they come from one source.

 

[Church_Militant]

This is a good approach to this topic. Thanks Perplexity.

I have a couple of articles on my blog that may shed some light on this. Each approaches Sacred Tradition a little differently.

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
Tradition? No way!

 

[Perplexity]

Well, there are many. There is Church History, what the Apostles taught, what the Pope Taught, etc. I believe we read the Didache too. We believe Sacred Scripture AND Tradition comes from ONE source. The Divine Revelation from God. It is impossible for them both to contradict each other because they come from one source.

The tricky thing with this is that ‘Church History’, ‘Papal teachings’ and even the didache come after the death of the last Apostle. You may say there was Church and papal teaching before his death but I doubt you’d find any of these teachings outside of Scripture, and any teachings you did find would probably be included in Scripture already.

When I was in seminary, I remember asking the rector after our Mystery of Salvation class ended whether there was a canon of Tradition: I wanted to know where to look if I wanted to find which teachings were Tradition. He told me ecumenical Councils, liturgy etc. however, none of these precede the death of the last Apostle. So, they can’t be Sacred Tradition.

 

[Monica4316]

Tradition comes from the Apostles. What the Popes, Councils, etc, said, that is interpretation of the Tradition that was once given. Tradition doesn’t change, it just gets elaborated upon and new terms are given etc… but all the ideas go back to the Apostles.

When the Pope says something is infallible, he doesn’t make it infallible Church teaching, it already is that and always was since the Apostles - he just proclaims it formally so the Church would know it is infallible. Generally this is done when the idea is being opposed by society for some reason.

What I’m trying to say is that the Church doesn’t make up Tradition or doctrine. It all goes back to the Apostles. Public revelation ended them. But the Church organizes it into dogmas, etc, - this is Tradition. Tradition is also how we interpret the Bible: because it needs to be interpreted in some reliable way.

God bless

 

[Perplexity]

Tradition comes from the Apostles. What the Popes, Councils, etc, said, that is interpretation of the Tradition that was once given. Tradition doesn’t change, it just gets elaborated upon and new terms are given etc… but all the ideas go back to the Apostles.

When the Pope says something is infallible, he doesn’t make it infallible Church teaching, it already is that and always was since the Apostles - he just proclaims it formally so the Church would know it is infallible. Generally this is done when the idea is being opposed by society for some reason.

What I’m trying to say is that the Church doesn’t make up Tradition or doctrine. It all goes back to the Apostles. Public revelation ended them. But the Church organizes it into dogmas, etc, - this is Tradition. Tradition is also how we interpret the Bible: because it needs to be interpreted in some reliable way.

God bless

But how do we know that what the Popes and Councils teach comes from Sacred Tradition? Is there a source we can examine and say "aha! Mary was assumed into heaven, it says right here in Sacred Tradition 43:23, “Mary was assumed into heaven.” etc. lol pardon the silly example. I just want to clarify what I’m asking for, some kind of source, the contents of which are Sacred Tradition.

As far as I can tell, we have no idea that a teaching is Sacred Tradition unless the magisterium says it is, and then, the magisterium doesn’t site any source for its declaration, it relies on its infallibility.

 

[davidv]

But how do we know that what the Popes and Councils teach comes from Sacred Tradition? Is there a source we can examine and say "aha! Mary was assumed into heaven, it says right here in Sacred Tradition 43:23, “Mary was assumed into heaven.” etc. lol pardon the silly example. I just want to clarify what I’m asking for, some kind of source, the contents of which are Sacred Tradition.

As far as I can tell, we have no idea that a teaching is Sacred Tradition unless the magisterium says it is, and then, the magisterium doesn’t site any source for its declaration, it relies on its infallibility.

The source of Tradition is the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised the Apostles would come to guide them to all Truth.

In the end, we are forced to trust that the Gospels accurately recorded what Jesus said and that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from teaching error.

 

[wisdomseeker]

But how do we know that what the Popes and Councils teach comes from Sacred Tradition? Is there a source we can examine and say "aha! Mary was assumed into heaven, it says right here in Sacred Tradition 43:23, “Mary was assumed into heaven.” etc. lol pardon the silly example. I just want to clarify what I’m asking for, some kind of source, the contents of which are Sacred Tradition.

As far as I can tell, we have no idea that a teaching is Sacred Tradition unless the magisterium says it is, and then, the magisterium doesn’t site any source for its declaration, it relies on its infallibility.

Sacred Tradition: the Mass, Holy Orders, Baptism, Eucharist(celebration of the Covenant of God with His Church), Sacred Scriptures, all the Sacraments, Bishops, priests, Penance, confession, fast, Prayers, Mary Mother of God, and so forth, the Magisterium.

We cannot know for sure that Jesus is the Son of God, yet we take His Word for it. It is all about obedience to God and His Commands. He built a Church and He expect us to believe her based on His Word and promises.

There are many things that was said by Jesus that was not written down. the only to know them is through the Church.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Perplexity]

“What I want this thread to be about is whether there is any verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.”

davidv: "The source of Tradition is the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised the Apostles would come to guide them to all Truth.

In the end, we are forced to trust that the Gospels accurately recorded what Jesus said and that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from teaching error."

Sacred Tradition: the Mass, Holy Orders, Baptism, Eucharist(celebration of the Covenant of God with His Church), Sacred Scriptures, all the Sacraments, Bishops, priests, Penance, confession, fast, Prayers, Mary Mother of God, and so forth, the Magisterium.

We cannot know for sure that Jesus is the Son of God, yet we take His Word for it. It is all about obedience to God and His Commands. He built a Church and He expect us to believe her based on His Word and promises.

There are many things that was said by Jesus that was not written down. the only to know them is through the Church.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I take these answers to mean there is no “verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.” Rather, the magisterium tells us this or that teaching is in Tradition and we trust it because it’s infallible. But, then I’m not sure why Catholics appeal to Tradition at all since it essentially means he’s just appealing to the magisterium.

 

[You]

“What I want this thread to be about is whether there is any verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.”

davidv: "The source of Tradition is the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised the Apostles would come to guide them to all Truth.

In the end, we are forced to trust that the Gospels accurately recorded what Jesus said and that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from teaching error."

I take these answers to mean there is no “verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.” Rather, the magisterium tells us this or that teaching is in Tradition and we trust it because it’s infallible. But, then I’m not sure why Catholics appeal to Tradition at all since it essentially means he’s just appealing to the magisterium.

The written Scriptures are also Tradition handed to you by the CC; the same CC also gives you the unwritten Traditions of the early Church. If you don’t trust the Church then you are placing yourself on a precipice, as it alone guarantees to you that the written Scriptures are accurate and true.

 

[Perplexity]

The written Scriptures are also Tradition handed to you by the CC; the same CC also gives you the unwritten Traditions of the early Church. If you don’t trust the Church then you are placing yourself on a precipice, as it alone guarantees to you that the written Scriptures are accurate and true.

This doesn’t really answer the OP.

 

[pablope]

The written Scriptures are also Tradition handed to you by the CC; the same CC also gives you the unwritten Traditions of the early Church. If you don’t trust the Church then you are placing yourself on a precipice, as it alone guarantees to you that the written Scriptures are accurate and true.

This doesn’t really answer the OP.

What You is trying to say is…the Bible is the written part of Sacred Tradition…it came from Sacred Tradition, but it is not complete.

Say the Mass…the Bible does not say how to celebrate the Mass. How do we know how to celebrate the Mass? From how the Apostles celebrated it…from their Tradition…which we do not change…the Mass’ basic parts are the same as the Apostles celebrated it.

 

[You]

…
If you want to know about the contents of Scripture, you can open up a Bible. But, if I want to know about the contents of Tradition, what source can I look to? Whatever it is, (assuming there’s just one), it must predate the death of the last Apostle.
…

If you were living at this moment in the days of the Apostles and you wanted to know the contents of Scripture you could not just open up a bible you would just have to listen to the church. If the church never wrote anything down you would still be asking the church. The church predates the bible.

 

[fhansen]

The tricky thing with this is that ‘Church History’, ‘Papal teachings’ and even the didache come after the death of the last Apostle. You may say there was Church and papal teaching before his death but I doubt you’d find any of these teachings outside of Scripture, and any teachings you did find would probably be included in Scripture already.

When I was in seminary, I remember asking the rector after our Mystery of Salvation class ended whether there was a canon of Tradition: I wanted to know where to look if I wanted to find which teachings were Tradition. He told me ecumenical Councils, liturgy etc. however, none of these precede the death of the last Apostle. So, they can’t be Sacred Tradition.

But if the Church really is meant to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” then scripture can’t fill that role anyway-the* Church* is meant to be the standard. And many who’ve struggled with the SS doctrine have eventually found it to be bankrupt because, unlike the Church, scripture can’t interpret scripture-there’s no one to tell us what it means, unless, as with many others who we may well disagree with, we claim guidance/inspiration by the HS. So the practice of the Church defines tradition.

 

[pablope]

Catholics often appeal to Sacred Tradition in support of various Catholic beliefs. But, I don’t think a lot of people realize just what Sacred Tradition is supposed to be, and I think illuminating this will greatly advanced dialogues.

[2] Pope Pius X condemned the proposition that “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” in his Lamentabili Sane, n. 21.

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture.

the Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[wisdomseeker]

“What I want this thread to be about is whether there is any verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.”

davidv: "The source of Tradition is the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised the Apostles would come to guide them to all Truth.

In the end, we are forced to trust that the Gospels accurately recorded what Jesus said and that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from teaching error."

I take these answers to mean there is no “verifiable…source…in which we can observe Sacred Tradition.” Rather, the magisterium tells us this or that teaching is in Tradition and we trust it because it’s infallible. But, then I’m not sure why Catholics appeal to Tradition at all since it essentially means he’s just appealing to the magisterium.

I am sorry but you make no sense. What source are you talking about? God is the source who gave the Church Sacred Tradition. You are going to have to trust the Church who hold these Tradition from God. the only place you can go to for knowledge of Sacred Tradition is the CC. what else do you need?
The trouble you have is that you dont believe in teh Church therefore you have trouble in believing in many things of God. The Church have the authority to declare Virgen Mary, the Mother of God. The Church has the authority to declare that contraception is sinful. The CC has the authority to declare a heresy, no other has this authority. The Church has the authority to declare all the Books of the Bible is the Word of God and so forth. The Church is Kingdom of God on earth. whatelse do you need?

 

[Perplexity]

What You is trying to say is…the Bible is the written part of Sacred Tradition…it came from Sacred Tradition, but it is not complete.

Say the Mass…the Bible does not say how to celebrate the Mass. How do we know how to celebrate the Mass? From how the Apostles celebrated it…from their Tradition…which we do not change…the Mass’ basic parts are the same as the Apostles celebrated it.

Okay

 

[Perplexity]

If you were living at this moment in the days of the Apostles and you wanted to know the contents of Scripture you could not just open up a bible you would just have to listen to the church. If the church never wrote anything down you would still be asking the church. The church predates the bible.

Okay

 

[Perplexity]

But if the Church really is meant to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” then scripture can’t fill that role anyway-the* Church* is meant to be the standard. And many who’ve struggled with the SS doctrine have eventually found it to be bankrupt because, unlike the Church, scripture can’t interpret scripture-there’s no one to tell us what it means, unless, as with many others who we may well disagree with, we claim guidance/inspiration by the HS. So the practice of the Church defines tradition.

I won’t defend SS, it’s not relevant to the thread and I don’t adhere to it.

As to your claim that “the practice of the Church defines tradition” keep in mind that the content of tradition can’t change, and it was given to the Church en toto before the death of the last Apostle. So, what source can I look to to see which teachings are in this Tradition? It’s not the teaching of the magisterium.

 

[Perplexity]

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture.

the Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry but this simply isn’t true. The doctrines contained in Tradition accumulated no new members after the death of the last Apostle. Catholics seem to frequently speak in these very, very general terms about Tradition: it’s the living truth of Christ etc. But, what specific teachings binding on the Church are in Tradition? What source can we look to? We’re never told.