A
aball1035
Guest
Catholics (including myself) believe in sacred scripture and tradition. What are some of the traditions Catholics follow that aren’t in Scripture?
- Status
P
pianistclare
Guest
What do you mean by “believe in Scripture and tradition?”
Also, your blog link seems to have been removed.
Also, your blog link seems to have been removed.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
If I understand your question correctly, I’d offer these:
- Scripture itself
- Assumption of the Blessed Mother
- The Trinity. (try to find that word in Scripture)
T
tawny
Guest
The 6th Station of the Cross; Veronica Wipes the Face of Jesus". There is no mention of this occurring in the Bible.
R
reggieM
Guest
A great book on this topic just recently published by Catholic Answers press is “Handed Down” by James L. Papandrea.
But the point is that all the Tradition of the Faith can be found in a root form in Scripture – and then explained and expanded by the Fathers of the Church in the earliest centuries.
But the point is that all the Tradition of the Faith can be found in a root form in Scripture – and then explained and expanded by the Fathers of the Church in the earliest centuries.
D
dnu
Guest
The actual Canon of the Bible is probably one of the strongest Traditions that comes to mind. Short of “it fell from the Heavens on a rainbow” few Protestant groups can offer a good explanation for how the 27 NT books they have are any more special than any other book from the first century.
N
Nigel7
Guest
The word “Eucharist” isn’t in scripture either, but that certainly doesn’t mean that the Eucharist isn’t in scripture. Eucharist is absolutely biblical. It’s simply what we call the body and blood of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass. “Do this in memory of me…”
The Trinity is what we call God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The word “Trinity” is not in scripture, BUT THE TRINITY IS IN SCRIPTURE. We applied that word later to describe the three persons of Almighty God who are found in scripture.
Here they are, all three persons of our Trinity together…
“After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16
Look, here they are in scripture again, those three persons we call the Trinity…
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”
Matthew 28:19
These things are not Church tradition or dogma. These things are taken straight from scripture, the teachings of Christ.
Peace
P
peter26
Guest
The Canon of Scripture amoungst other traditions of the church are that which has been accepted by all people, in all places at all times (so said St Vincent Lerins in the 5th Century). The Trinity is an idea that can be proved from scripture. The Assumption is a non-Biblical concept and is therefore not something we can be certain about. It is not an important concept though one way or the other since it makes no difference to our day to day lives.
T
trek17
Guest
Since the Assumption was declared ex cathedra, it kinda is a big deal. It may not affect your day to day life, but it is “an important concept.”
F
fhansen
Guest
What makes you believe that we can be certain of biblical concepts? In any case there are doctrines of the Church, such as the Real Presence, that are well supported by Scripture but can still not be proven definitively. Plausible alternatives to the RP can interpreted from John chap 6 for example. And this, along with other beliefs and practices such as those you’ve mentioned, is where Tradition can really kick in and help us. The Church, both in the east and west, has held to the doctrine of the Real Presence, by whatever term we want to use for it, since the beginnings of Christianity.
P
peter26
Guest
The natural interpretation of John 6 is the real presence in some form, although the specific philosophical arguments for the form this takes (transubstantiation vs consubstantiation) are another example of a side issue not provable from scripture but of little ultimate consequence.
T
thistle
Guest
However, that is not Sacred Tradition, nor is it a Church teaching, nor do Catholics have to believe it.
F
fhansen
Guest
I think, if I was some objective observer with no dog in the fight, I might not have a clue what John 6 was trying to say one way or the other.
The point in any case is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unusable, Scripture alone cannot give us definitive answers regarding the faith. For that the living experience of the Church (Tradition) from the beginning of our faith is also required. Perhaps a better example could be Infant Baptism. Very little is mentioned about it in the bible and the argument for adult/believers only Baptism is quite plausible and reasonable, while still debatable. But the Tradition of the Church east and west resolves the matter; infant Baptism was always and everywhere practiced by the Church from as far back as she knows.
D
Della
Guest
The Assumption of Mary is not concept foreign to Scripture. Enoch and Elijah were both assumed into heaven as living persons. The dogma of the Assumption of Mary is based in Sacred Tradition of which Scripture is one part.
Any doctrine that is raised to the level of dogma must be believed–not because each of us has deduced it is true for ourselves, or because we ferreted out some direct biblical reference to it, but because the Church declares it as truth.
The Church gets her authority in such matters directly from Christ, who promised that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church into all truth.
P
peter26
Guest
I am aware that Elijah was assumed into Heaven. That is a historical precedent but does not prove it happened a second time. The Book of Enoch is however apocryphal. As for anything else, I do not believe anything that can not be proved from scripture can be essential to believe.
E
Erich
Guest
Where is that idea to be found in Scripture?
As a matter of fact, we know from 1 Tim 3:15 that the church of the living God [and not some collection of books] is the pillar and foundation of truth.
R
Renan
Guest
You are totally wrong. The bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is, as pope Pius XII said, “based on the Sacred Writings” (MD 41) as well. It is infallible teaching, and saying it “is therefore not something we can be certain about” is totally heretical. You must read Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus and the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus.
“…] by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith” (MD 44 - 45).
P
peter26
Guest
Deuteronomy 4:2 "“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
Deuteronomy 12:32 “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
Psalms 119: 160 “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”
Proverbs 30:6 “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
P
peter26
Guest
If it is based on scripture, post a reference. Otherwise, its just one man’s opinion.
R
reggieM
Guest
You stated that nothing which cannot be proven from scripture is essential to believe.
What you posted here does not support that idea.
In order to have a New Testament at all, something more than scripture alone was required.
- Status