Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter sarahcatherineh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sarahcatherineh

Guest
Hi,

I was hoping to gain a clearer understanding of what constitutes Sacred Tradition. Would you be able to give me a good definition and some good example?

I’ve read what the catechism says about tradition. I know that with Sacred Scripture it composes the full font of revelation. I know we receive truths such as Purgatory and the Assumption of Mary that do not have very clear, explicit reference in scripture from Sacred Tradition. I know that Paul encouraged us in the scriptures to adhere to tradition. I know that it constitutes what was passed on orally. I also listened to a Tim Staples cd that said all Tradition came from only the first century.

What is not clear to me is what makes it confined to the first century? Is Tradition anything that the first apostles taught? This is confusing to me, becasue Paul was not one of the original twelve.

The other part that is not clear to me is that since it was passed on orally how do we know what it is? Is it anything the Church teaches? And how do I distinguish tradition from the teaching Magisterium.

This area is very foggy to me. I accept the Church and all it teaches, but I can not explain to others that which is unclear to me.

Thank you.
 
You are right - it can be very “foggy” and difficult to get a handle on.

The way that I grasp it is this.

Oral “Tradition” contains many things that cannot be included in the written Tradition because of the limitations of writing. Things like inflection, emphasis and such.
Even today, with modern grammar, sentence structure, punctuation and so forth we can have misunderstandings - on the internet we sometimes use “emoticons” to try to clarify our intent.
The ancients did not have these advantages. All of the letters were “capitals”, there was little or no punctuation, I believe that in Hebrew they did not even have letters for the vowel sounds…
Add to that the fact that writing supplies were precious and expensive and that what was written down was designed more as the “essentials” - that could be expanded on by the trained teacher - and one can recognize how important it was to have people trained in a line of succession. From one Generation to the next.

As a teacher taught, first from the text and then from what he was taught, his pupils would ask questions relating to understanding…The teacher expands and expounds on this. The emphasis, the inflection, the various applications etc…All of these things are part and parcel of Oral Tradition.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James
 
Such as purgatory, which us based strictly upon tradition with no biblical reference to support it.
You are right - it can be very “foggy” and difficult to get a handle on.

The way that I grasp it is this.

Oral “Tradition” contains many things that cannot be included in the written Tradition because of the limitations of writing. Things like inflection, emphasis and such.
Even today, with modern grammar, sentence structure, punctuation and so forth we can have misunderstandings - on the internet we sometimes use “emoticons” to try to clarify our intent.
The ancients did not have these advantages. All of the letters were “capitals”, there was little or no punctuation, I believe that in Hebrew they did not even have letters for the vowel sounds…
Add to that the fact that writing supplies were precious and expensive and that what was written down was designed more as the “essentials” - that could be expanded on by the trained teacher - and one can recognize how important it was to have people trained in a line of succession. From one Generation to the next.

As a teacher taught, first from the text and then from what he was taught, his pupils would ask questions relating to understanding…The teacher expands and expounds on this. The emphasis, the inflection, the various applications etc…All of these things are part and parcel of Oral Tradition.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James
 
Such as purgatory, which us based strictly upon tradition with no biblical reference to support it.
Actually, this is incorrect, Ken.

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and “under the earth” which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.

cont’d
 
Such as purgatory, which us based strictly upon tradition with no biblical reference to support it.
This is not precisely true.
There is Biblical reference to support the doctrine of the purgation after death and “purgatory” is simply the term applied to that state (not heaven - not hell) in which the purgation takes place.

Look HERE for references both in the Biblical texts and in in the ECF’s

Peace
James
 
More:

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol,” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven).

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.
Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.
II. Purification After Death By Fire

Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).

1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

1 Cor. 3:15 – “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for “suffer loss” in the Greek is “zemiothesetai.” The root word is “zemioo” which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

1 Cor. 3:15 – further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, “but only” (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase “but only” (or “yet so”) in the Greek is “houtos” which means “in the same manner.” This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.

1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man’s work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God’s temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17), all of which are judged after death.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith.

Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if they are in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if they are in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory.

Rev. 3:18-19 - Jesus refers to this fire as what refines into gold those He loves if they repent of their sins. This is in the context of after death because Jesus, speaking from heaven, awards the white garment of salvation after the purgation of fire (both after death).

Dan 12:10 - Daniel refers to this refining by saying many shall purify themselves, make themselves white and be refined.

Wis. 3:5-6 - the dead are disciplined and tested by fire to receive their heavenly reward. This is the fire of purgatory.

Sirach 2:5 - for gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

Zech. 13:8-9 - God says 2/3 shall perish, and 1/3 shall be left alive, put into the fire, and refined like silver and tested like gold. The ones that perish go to hell, and there is no need for refinement in heaven, so those being refined are in purgatory.

Mal. 3:2-3 - also refers to God’s purification of the righteous at their death. source
 
This is not precisely true.
There is Biblical reference to support the doctrine of the purgation after death and “purgatory” is simply the term applied to that state (not heaven - not hell) in which the purgation takes place.

Look HERE for references both in the Biblical texts and in in the ECF’s

Peace
James
Heh. Great minds think alike, yes? 🙂
 
Hi,

I was hoping to gain a clearer understanding of what constitutes Sacred Tradition. Would you be able to give me a good definition and some good example?

I’ve read what the catechism says about tradition. I know that with Sacred Scripture it composes the full font of revelation. I know we receive truths such as Purgatory and the Assumption of Mary that do not have very clear, explicit reference in scripture from Sacred Tradition. I know that Paul encouraged us in the scriptures to adhere to tradition. I know that it constitutes what was passed on orally. I also listened to a Tim Staples cd that said all Tradition came from only the first century.

What is not clear to me is what makes it confined to the first century? Is Tradition anything that the first apostles taught? This is confusing to me, becasue Paul was not one of the original twelve.

The other part that is not clear to me is that since it was passed on orally how do we know what it is? Is it anything the Church teaches? And how do I distinguish tradition from the teaching Magisterium.

This area is very foggy to me. I accept the Church and all it teaches, but I can not explain to others that which is unclear to me.

Thank you.
Consider the following verse:

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

And, likewise, you can see where St Paul told the churches to not only follow what was written, but what he said when he was there. For example,
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:2[/BIBLEDRB]
Note: “ordinance” = παράδοσις = “tradition” (literally, a “handing over”)
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thes 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thes 3:6[/BIBLEDRB]

So that is a Scriptural corroboration of verbal Tradition in addition to a written Tradition.

As far as purgatory not having a clear Scriptural reference, I beg to differ:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 3:10-15[/BIBLEDRB]

And as for the Assumption, that is just a matter of common sense. You will note that the Book of Acts (the last historical narrative in the Scriptures) ends as follows:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 28:30-31[/BIBLEDRB]

You will note that St Paul is still very much alive at that point. And you will note that he is in Rome.

Neither he, nor St Luke, his “scribe”, were in direct contact with the Blessed Virgin at that time. Now, take a look at his introduction to part 1 of his two-part treatise:
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:1-4[/BIBLEDRB]
The point being that:
  • Neither St Luke nor St Paul may have had direct knowledge of the status of the Blessed Virgin (in which case, how could St Luke have documented this as part of a narration of what happened to them?)
    -or-
  • She was still alive when he closed out the documentation of the second part of his treatise to Theophilus
So, simply because the event is not recorded in the NT historical account is not basis for stating that it happened or did not happen.

Besides that, the Assumption is not all that fantastic a story anyway. There is actually OT precedent. Consider both Elijah and Enoch:

[BIBLEDRB]4 Kings 2:11-12[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 5:22-24[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Sirach 44:16[/BIBLEDRB]

As far as St Paul, he had a very direct revelation where Christ, Himself, made him an apostle:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 9:3-6[/BIBLEDRB]

And consider this:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 15:3-8[/BIBLEDRB]

An interesting comparison with the choosing of Paul as an apostle can be drawn from this passage:

[BIBLEDRB]Rom 11:17-24[/BIBLEDRB]

It’s as if Jesus grafted Paul in to the college of apostles by His will. (Especially interesting as Paul identified himself as the “apostle to the gentiles”)
 
The most important aspect of Tradition, I’d say, is not extra content that’s not in Scripture, but a context in which to understand Scripture. It’s from extra-scriptural sources that we can learn things like how the early Christians worshipped, how they were organized, and how they understood unclear passages and concepts from Scripture.

Note that, while these are the sorts of things that did not have to be written down, since they could be passed to new Christians through preaching and practice, it’s only from written sources that we, so many centuries later, can know for sure what they did preach and practice. That’s why the study of historical Christian writings, such as the early Fathers, is so important, especially when defending historic Christianity against those who believe they have completely reconstructed the New Testament Church from the New Testament alone, divorced from other historical evidence.

Usagi
 
My take on Tradition, admittedly comes from the ccc. Our textbooks are based on the catechism. Our text teaches us that we reived the “good news” first by the teaching of Jesus. Then those who were taught by Jesus,the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, spread the “Good News” orally. This is what the Catholic Church calls Tradition. Some of the oral teaching was written down in the New Testament. As was quoted earlier, St. John tells us that Jesus said and did many more things, but there is not room in this world to write them all down. Since Tradition is the retelling of what Jesus said to his apostles, there has been nothing to add to it since the last one of them died around the year 100. The magisteirum of the Church has the responsibility to study the scripture we have. They are guided by the Holy Spirit when they study and work together to ensure the clarity and accuracy of what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
This is not precisely true.
There is Biblical reference to support the doctrine of the purgation after death and “purgatory” is simply the term applied to that state (not heaven - not hell) in which the purgation takes place.

Look HERE for references both in the Biblical texts and in in the ECF’s

Peace
James
Dear Sir, I agree with you in that its at best debatable. PR merger is making leaps without any credible scripture to back up purgatory.
 
Dear Sir, I agree with you in that its at best debatable. PR merger is making leaps without any credible scripture to back up purgatory.
What is it that you find objectionable to the Scripture verses I cited supporting Purgatory, Ken?
 
I’m confused! I thought this thread was about Tradition. It reads like it is about the basis for the Church’s teaching on purgatory. Shouldn’t these be separate threads?
 
What is it that you find objectionable to the Scripture verses I cited supporting Purgatory, Ken?
What you are citing in term of verses has nothing explicit about purgatory…well that is until you take cleaver initiative to write “purgatory” next to verse as is your interpretation.

So we are back to square one.
 
What you are citing in term of verses has nothing explicit about purgatory…well that is until you take cleaver initiative to write “purgatory” next to verse as is your interpretation.

So we are back to square one.
Why must something be “explicit” in Scripture? Where does Scripture say this?

And if you hold this standard, then could you please show us what verses are “explicitly” about the Trinity? And the hypostatic union? I presume you believe these dogmas, yes?
 
Dear Sir, I agree with you in that its at best debatable. PR merger is making leaps without any credible scripture to back up purgatory.
Sir…I do not think that it is “debatable” at all.

Your statement was this:
Such as purgatory, which us based strictly upon tradition with no biblical reference to support it.
I demonstrated that there are indeed biblical references upon which the doctrine of purgatory is set.
You may doubt that these biblical references point to purgatory and that is certainly you prerogative, but two things are not debatable.
  1. The quotes offered ARE biblical.
  2. The Church DOES use them as support for the doctrine of Purgatory.
    Therefore, your statement that Purgatory is, “based strictly upon tradition with no biblical reference to support it” is false.
    The only issue is whether you agree with the Spirit Guided Church on the matter and on the references.
Peace
James
 
I’m confused! I thought this thread was about Tradition. It reads like it is about the basis for the Church’s teaching on purgatory. Shouldn’t these be separate threads?
Because purgatory is one of the teachings we understand in light of Scripture AND Tradition.
 
I’m confused! I thought this thread was about Tradition. It reads like it is about the basis for the Church’s teaching on purgatory. Shouldn’t these be separate threads?
Yes they should be really…

I’m sure a search for Purgatory in the forums will turn up many previous discussions as well.

Peace
James
 
What you are citing in term of verses has nothing explicit about purgatory…well that is until you take cleaver initiative to write “purgatory” next to verse as is your interpretation.

So we are back to square one.
This is not true…
In your profile you list as “Catholic (full fledged)”. As such you should be in agreement that the Church does not teach error and is Guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the Spirit Guided Church has clarified these things under the doctrine of Purgation, “Purgatory”, there really should be no problem here for a “full fledged Catholic”…

Or are you perhaps simply playing “devils advocate”?

Peace
James
 
Why must something be “explicit” in Scripture? Where does Scripture say this?

And if you hold this standard, then could you please show us what verses are “explicitly” about the Trinity? And the hypostatic union? I presume you believe these dogmas, yes?
Please. The Father , Son, Holy Spirit is all over the bible.

I am not saying there is not purgatory, simply stating its strictly tradition and not biblical. I think many fellow Catholics would agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top