What is Tradition

[AmateurPianist]

One more thing…

Since Sacred Scripture is common in the “preserved by” for all three of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant…it sort of begs the question on whether there is anything in Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

Catholic: Not sure…I seem to have recall reading somewhere about material sufficiency versus formal sufficiency but now have forgotten what they are. At the least, if they are all in
Scripture they may not be of clarity that “even a cave man can get it”. Sorry for my rough wording here, I hope to refine it.

Orthodox: Not sure

Protestant: Probably not. Although some branches of Protestant might concede there are things in Scripture that are subject to different interpretations and that we should turn to the ancient writings (ECF and creeds) in order to discern “original intent”.

 

[guanophore]

Yes…I have seen the term here “Apostolic Tradition”. Some questions?

Does that mean in order for a tradition to be valid it has to come from the apostles?

There is a “once for all” deposit of faith to the Church. This public revelation of Jesus through the Apostles was closed at the death of the last Apsotle. As you know, some of the NT books were not written by Apostles, but those close to them, such as Luke.

Are there any traditions that are not in Scripture that come from the apostles? If so, how do you know they come from the apostles and are not somebody’s nice idea?

Yes, many. The Trinity, the Sunday observance, the hypostatic union, and the canon itself. If you notice, there is no table of contents in Scripture (list of books that belong in it). This list was compiled in 382 on the basis of Sacred Tradition. 27 books were chosen from among 400+ floating around claiming to be inspired. The Bible is probably the most widely accepted Sacred Tradition. However, there is one important Sacred Tradition that was abandoned by the Reformers in the 1600’s, that is that the Scripture is not to be read in separation from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

A couple of questions. How can you say Sacred Tradition comes before the Bible. The earliest epistles and/or gospels were penned a short time after the death of Christ. And of course the OT predates Christ.

Almost 20 years, and some books not until 70 years after the death of Christ. And it was not until 382 that the NT was formed. Sacred Tradition did not just dissolve when some of it was committted to writing in the NT letters and gospels.

There is some of Sacred Tradition that was brought over from Judaism. For example, do you remember what the disciples did on Pentecost after they were baptized? “They devoted themselves to the Apostles Teaching, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers”. These prayers, teaching, and Divine liturgies are alive and well in the Church today.

People discern.  Stuff that is passed on is not animate and thus has no capability to "discern".

This is very true, and also the reason that Scripture does not “discern”. It is the reason why, when people read the scripture, they come up with so many different understandings, all believe they are “led by the HS”.

It would be more correct to say that the Sacred Tradition is a set of criteria which is used to discern.

If I am alive during the apostles or say 2-3 generations after the apostles, tradition is something tangible to me. I could hear say St. Ignatius say I heard such-and-such from the apostle John who heard this from Jesus. And in as much that I trust St. Ignatius and by extension the apostle John I can take what he is saying as the words of Christ.

But here we are 2000 years after the fact. So I am left with a dilemma. I can either believe there is this body of stuff that God wants me today to know and believe that comes from the apostles but was never written down, instead was passed down by word of mouth for 2000 years. Moreover it is very clear what this stuff is as opposed to other stuff that some might claim comes from the apostles but really did not.

Or I can believe that the stuff that comes from the apostles and that God wants me to know and believe today was written down and is what is known as the Bible.

Of the two, the second seems the simplest.

Yes, it is always simplier to cut out part of the Truth, reducing it to a readers digest version.

The Truth is that Jesus is able to Preserve His Word in the Church, as well as in the HS. He is able to keep His promise to lead the Church into all Truth,a nd to bring to mind all that He has taught. Believing that He has done this (kept His Word) is the reason we can trust the Deposit of Faith that was handed down.

If you think about it, God prepared a people for 5000 years to keep Sacred Tradition. In the fulness of time, He came to a people that already had learned well the methods of keeping His Word in non-written as well as written form.

 

[AmateurPianist]

There is a “once for all” deposit of faith to the Church. This public revelation of Jesus through the Apostles was closed at the death of the last Apsotle. As you know, some of the NT books were not written by Apostles, but those close to them, such as Luke.

I am really trying to get a working definition of Tradition that I can understand and that is not personified. From what I have read and heard so far I can define it as “The teachings of Jesus Christ orally transmitted to the apostles and then orally transmitted to the apostolic church”.

The problem with this definition is that it does not quite fit if you want to say the canon of Scripture. So you are using the term “deposit of faith”. OK this is not personified, but I am still having difficulty getting my mind about this. Would a working definition here be “all the stuff that God wants the church of Jesus Christ to know and believe” (sorry for the word stuff but that is how I think). And this stuff primarily was transferred from Jesus to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church (the canon of Scripture being an exception of course)

Yes, many. The Trinity, the Sunday observance, the hypostatic union, and the canon itself. If you notice, there is no table of contents in Scripture (list of books that belong in it). This list was compiled in 382 on the basis of Sacred Tradition. 27 books were chosen from among 400+ floating around claiming to be inspired. The Bible is probably the most widely accepted Sacred Tradition. However, there is one important Sacred Tradition that was abandoned by the Reformers in the 1600’s, that is that the Scripture is not to be read in separation from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

Almost 20 years, and some books not until 70 years after the death of Christ. And it was not until 382 that the NT was formed. Sacred Tradition did not just dissolve when some of it was committted to writing in the NT letters and gospels.

There is some of Sacred Tradition that was brought over from Judaism. For example, do you remember what the disciples did on Pentecost after they were baptized? “They devoted themselves to the Apostles Teaching, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers”. These prayers, teaching, and Divine liturgies are alive and well in the Church today.

This is very true, and also the reason that Scripture does not “discern”. It is the reason why, when people read the scripture, they come up with so many different understandings, all believe they are “led by the HS”.

It would be more correct to say that the Sacred Tradition is a set of criteria which is used to discern.

Yes, it is always simplier to cut out part of the Truth, reducing it to a readers digest version.

The Truth is that Jesus is able to Preserve His Word in the Church, as well as in the HS. He is able to keep His promise to lead the Church into all Truth,a nd to bring to mind all that He has taught. Believing that He has done this (kept His Word) is the reason we can trust the Deposit of Faith that was handed down.

If you think about it, God prepared a people for 5000 years to keep Sacred Tradition. In the fulness of time, He came to a people that already had learned well the methods of keeping His Word in non-written as well as written form.

So this leads me to my observation that the stuff I wrote above really should not be controversial. Now I get it that some might not like the word Tradition, but other than the word being used…now really…

So now this leads me to my observation that the disagreement is how this is preserved so that we 2000 years after the fact can know what God wants us to know and believe. And is there any stuff that God wants us to know and believe that is not within Scripture. If so, how do we know this is from God and not an ancient urban legend.

I get it that to the Catholic, the magisterium of the Catholic church is what preserves tradition and identifies what parts of tradition not found in the Bible is valid. The problem being of course is that if you are not Catholic (including Orthodox) you just are not going to believe that God provides a special benefit to an organization that is not yours that He just can/will not provide through yours.

So what I am interested in is the perspective of other Christians as to what tradition is and how it is preserved. And if you believe that tradition is all a bunch of hooey, then how exactly do you know that Hebrews is a part of the Bible which is considered the Word of God while 1 Clement and the writings of Ignatius (while being nice and all that) are not.

 

[KathleenGee]

Amateur Pianist,

I don’t know if I missed your point, but again, it is not just teachings, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who fills and leads us. Rather, after being anointed, we are in the Holy Spirit in our focus on Christ.

You can say the deposit of faith in belief is found in the Creed.

Some of the differences between Orthodox and Latin are tolerable. Others, as Mary being sinless, is not held by the Orthodox, but alot of Catholics as well. It is a mystery to them and it is put on the shelf so to speak.

We are all living in different areas of the world. We can discern what is our faith and what is a practice in a given local. Even dioceses next door to each other may have a particular regional ‘flavor’, but the common faith is the same.

What moved me very deeply was going to Mass one night in a village that hadn’t a priest. This was in SE Africa, its local practically at the antipode from my parents’ home halfway around the world. The priest and I came in to see the mud hut decorated in African style with strips of colored paper along the top of the ceiling. There was a little altar on this wood table.

On the little table, was a picture of Pope John XIII and the picture of the same Sacred Heart of Jesus that my mother had in my parents’ home. The priest brought in his necessities to set the altar and prepare. We lived in vastly different cultures. We spoke different languages, and were of different races. But the Mass was said, we all knew the parts and meanings, the Word of God, and reception of the Sacred Eucharist.

The bishops must work constantly, be aware of the forces on any given community to help people to understand the Word of God in the context of their times, and to insure the Mass is constantly reviewed to ensure that the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ through the Apostles is the same message today as it was in the Apostles’ times.

The context and tone at Mass, the manner of teachings is in the same tone and manner as was taught 2,000 years ago. I see it most remarkedly in the writings of St. Justin the Martyr who died around 133 AD. He was asked to explain the Mass. It was described in the same tone and manner we have today. So you have this rhythm of faith, practice and community of believers.

 

[Alindawyl]

I am really trying to get a working definition of Tradition that I can understand and that is not personified. From what I have read and heard so far I can define it as “The teachings of Jesus Christ orally transmitted to the apostles and then orally transmitted to the apostolic church”.

That’s basically the definition of Sacred Tradition.

The problem with this definition is that it does not quite fit if you want to say the canon of Scripture. So you are using the term “deposit of faith”. OK this is not personified, but I am still having difficulty getting my mind about this. Would a working definition here be “all the stuff that God wants the church of Jesus Christ to know and believe” (sorry for the word stuff but that is how I think). And this stuff primarily was transferred from Jesus to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church (the canon of Scripture being an exception of course)

The deposit of faith is the entirety of the saving truth which God has revealed to us. If it’s necessary for our salvation, then it will be found somewhere in the deposit of faith.

Everything in the New Testament was first revealed by Jesus through his oral teaching. That oral teaching was then preserved by the apostles also as oral teaching, which as you have already noted is Sacred Tradition.

Some of that revelation, the most important, has been written down in the form of Sacred Scripture. And of that Sacred Scripture, the Gospels are the most important because they are directly about Jesus himself.

How did the bishops know what writings belonged in Sacred Scripture and what writings did not? It’s not Sacred Tradition alone. It’s Sacred Tradition plus magisterial authority. The three (Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, magisterial authority) are inextricably connected. You can’t get rid of any of the three, or the whole thing falls apart.

So this leads me to my observation that the stuff I wrote above really should not be controversial. Now I get it that some might not like the word Tradition, but other than the word being used…now really…

So now this leads me to my observation that the disagreement is how this is preserved so that we 2000 years after the fact can know what God wants us to know and believe. And is there any stuff that God wants us to know and believe that is not within Scripture. If so, how do we know this is from God and not an ancient urban legend.

I get it that to the Catholic, the magisterium of the Catholic church is what preserves tradition and identifies what parts of tradition not found in the Bible is valid. The problem being of course is that if you are not Catholic (including Orthodox) you just are not going to believe that God provides a special benefit to an organization that is not yours that He just can/will not provide through yours.

So what I am interested in is the perspective of other Christians as to what tradition is and how it is preserved. And if you believe that tradition is all a bunch of hooey, then how exactly do you know that Hebrews is a part of the Bible which is considered the Word of God while 1 Clement and the writings of Ignatius (while being nice and all that) are not.

A very good question. If they do not have an infallible teaching authority which stretches back in an unbroken chain to Jesus and the apostles, from whence does their authority to teach derive?

 

[KathleenGee]

Protestants devoted to Scripture share the same experience of Jesus in the Word through the Holy Spirit.

But they do not have the sacraments, the history of faith as priests document as much as they can their own work in their parish as well as the local bishop, and the communion of saints. The protestants do not have a 2,000 year history of theologians.

I was at a neighborhood Bible study reviewing a book they wanted all of us to read, ‘A Purpose Driven Life’. It affirmed the same personal Catholic faith, but it left worship to each individual. The hosts were Nazareens.

We would reflect on Scripture and share…but the way they approached Scripture was very different. They brought dictionaries out. They would come to a word in a phrase and determine its English different modes of meaning and how they would reflect on God and their personal life.

There were 3 Catholics…we all sat together…it was like we heard the passage…sitting next to them I could sense the Eucharist Lord within them as they go regularly to Mass. We heard the Word and the Eucharist Lord within us pointed us the way…and it was to take the Word of God, digest it, and go immediately to serve others. These Nazareens were also serving others. They serve the Lord in others, we serve the Lord in others. But they ponder the words whereas we ponder the phrase as a whole.

Catholics, through Tradition, understand Scripture more in context of its whole…

 

[guanophore]

I am really trying to get a working definition of Tradition that I can understand and that is not personified. From what I have read and heard so far I can define it as “The teachings of Jesus Christ orally transmitted to the apostles and then orally transmitted to the apostolic church”.

The problem with this definition is that it does not quite fit if you want to say the canon of Scripture. So you are using the term “deposit of faith”. OK this is not personified, but I am still having difficulty getting my mind about this. Would a working definition here be “all the stuff that God wants the church of Jesus Christ to know and believe” (sorry for the word stuff but that is how I think). And this stuff primarily was transferred from Jesus to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church (the canon of Scripture being an exception of course)

Although there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not written, and much the Apostles learned from Him that is not written, there is not a dichotomy between what is written in Scripture and what is the lived experience of God in the Church. Sacred Tradition is also a lifestyle, a way of walking with God (in the NT called “The Way”) which contains a world view. It is the Word of God alive and well in the Church.

So now this leads me to my observation that the disagreement is how this is preserved so that we 2000 years after the fact can know what God wants us to know and believe. And is there any stuff that God wants us to know and believe that is not within Scripture. If so, how do we know this is from God and not an ancient urban legend.

Catholics know this because it has been faithfully handed down (paradosis) and because we believe Jesus at His word, that he would not abandon the Church, and that He would lead her into all Truth.

I get it that to the Catholic, the magisterium of the Catholic church is what preserves tradition and identifies what parts of tradition not found in the Bible is valid.

While it is the particular duty of the Magesterium to hold and transmit the faith of the church, it is the HS that preserves God’s Word, not men. And, it is preserved in all of those who are willing to cooperate with the HS to have His Word dwell in them. Therefore the consensus fidelum or consensus of faith among all the members of the Church also holds the Sacred Tradition along with the Magesterium. In either case, it is the HS that upholds them.

The problem being of course is that if you are not Catholic (including Orthodox) you just are not going to believe that God provides a special benefit to an organization that is not yours that He just can/will not provide through yours.

The Orthodox have preserved the same Apostolic Sacred Tradition as we have, and believe that it is preserved, as we do, by the HS among the faithful.

So what I am interested in is the perspective of other Christians as to what tradition is and how it is preserved. And if you believe that tradition is all a bunch of hooey, then how exactly do you know that Hebrews is a part of the Bible which is considered the Word of God while 1 Clement and the writings of Ignatius (while being nice and all that) are not.

This is an excellent question to explore on this topic, as is the term “Trinity” and “hypostatic union”.

 

[LionHeart777]

So here is the rub.

If I am alive during the apostles or say 2-3 generations after the apostles, tradition is something tangible to me. I could hear say St. Ignatius say I heard such-and-such from the apostle John who heard this from Jesus. And in as much that I trust St. Ignatius and by extension the apostle John I can take what he is saying as the words of Christ.

But here we are 2000 years after the fact. So I am left with a dilemma. I can either believe there is this body of stuff that God wants me today to know and believe that comes from the apostles but was never written down, instead was passed down by word of mouth for 2000 years. Moreover it is very clear what this stuff is as opposed to other stuff that some might claim comes from the apostles but really did not.

Or I can believe that the stuff that comes from the apostles and that God wants me to know and believe today was written down and is what is known as the Bible.
Of the two, the second seems the simplest.

(emphasis mine)

Hi AmateurPianist,

My question to you would be whose Canon of Scripture?

P.S. This is a great topic/thread as I could probably use a better understanding of what Tradition is.

 

[Zooey]

A couple of questions. How can you say Sacred Tradition comes before the Bible. The earliest epistles and/or gospels were penned a short time after the death of Christ. And of course the OT predates Christ.

But it is this statement that is very confusing.

How can something inanimate even be capable of “discerning”? People discern. Stuff that is passed on is not animate and thus has no capability to “discern”.

The Canon of Scripture is the perfect example of a Tradition. Why? Because there had to be a **canon **before there could be a Bible. (At least one without a host of other early Christian writings).
Tradition is a very good reason, in fact, to reject other writings from the canon.
It isn’t necessary for me to find a theologian to explain all the errors in the Book of Mormon; the Canon of Scripture is closed. Period.
I don’t need to figure out whether the Bhaghavad Gita is or is not theologically incorrect; it’s not canonical, so :shrug:it doesn’t “make the cut”.

Of course, as a Methodist, I am, in fact, using the Wesley Quadrilateral in arriving at the above judgments. (Before I “signed on” as it were, I was often as not all at sea as to what was “scriptural” because I didn’t have a means of judging such things…and this after being raised in the midst of the spiritual/intellectual heirs of the Wesleys).

HTH…as opposed to :blush:confusing things all over again…

 

[Chanticleer]

AmateurPianist,

I suggest getting a hold of a book called **“By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers ****Catholic Tradition” **written by Mark P. Shea. The author sets out to prove “Scripture Alone” and the reader follows his step by step thought process as he gradually discovers how and why Sacred Tradition occupies a central role in Divine Revelation for Catholics and he becomes convinced at the same time. Whether you end up agreeing with his conclusions or not you will learn so much about how both Evangelicals and Catholics think and discern Truth. The book is a quick, easy and even entertaining read .(182 pages- Our Sunday Visitor is the Publisher -available on Amazon)

God Bless your knowledge/Truth quest:thumbsup:

Chanticleer

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ gave us the message…

Christ gave the apostles the work of building up His church…

The Church is a work in itself.

 

[AmateurPianist]

(emphasis mine)

Hi AmateurPianist,

My question to you would be whose Canon of Scripture?

P.S. This is a great topic/thread as I could probably use a better understanding of what Tradition is.

God’s. Admittedly I do not understand the question.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The Canon of Scripture is the perfect example of a Tradition. Why? Because there had to be a **canon **before there could be a Bible. (At least one without a host of other early Christian writings).
Tradition is a very good reason, in fact, to reject other writings from the canon.
It isn’t necessary for me to find a theologian to explain all the errors in the Book of Mormon; the Canon of Scripture is closed. Period.
I don’t need to figure out whether the Bhaghavad Gita is or is not theologically incorrect; it’s not canonical, so :shrug:it doesn’t “make the cut”.

Of course, as a Methodist, I am, in fact, using the Wesley Quadrilateral in arriving at the above judgments. (Before I “signed on” as it were, I was often as not all at sea as to what was “scriptural” because I didn’t have a means of judging such things…and this after being raised in the midst of the spiritual/intellectual heirs of the Wesleys).

HTH…as opposed to :blush:confusing things all over again…

Excellent!!! A Protestant contributing to this thread. Now all we need is an Orthodox person.

So in the interest of getting various perspectives here:

How would you define tradition? I am working with two definitions in my head: (1) The oral teaching of Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church (2) The “deposit of faith” which in the vernacular is “the stuff that God wants us to know and believe today” (I have to understand things using nonSpiritual words in order to understand things). Do these definitions work for you?

How is tradition preserved? In other words how do we in 2010 know which stuff that someone might claim is an oral teaching of Christ to the apostles or a part of stuff that God wants us to know and believe today is actually true or when you get down to it a 2000 year old urban legend (now we all agree that tradition is preserved via that Bible, I suspect the disagreement is in other methods and the authority level of other methods). If you claim that tradition is preserved via other methods, what is the authority level of these other methods versus Scripture?

Ah…and I see you mention the Wesley Quadrangle. When I came across that in my reading, it made a whole lot of sense. Would you say that the thing about “history” is about the same anyway as “tradition”.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Yes…I have seen the term here “Apostolic Tradition”. Some questions?

Does that mean in order for a tradition to be valid it has to come from the apostles?

Are there any traditions that are not in Scripture that come from the apostles? If so, how do you know they come from the apostles and are not somebody’s nice idea?

AmateurPianist,

Sorry for the belated reply. To answer your question, “Apostolic Tradition” is delivered via the Apostles, and is binding on all Christians, it’s what Jude calls “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3). It includes, but isn’t limited to, the Bible. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions taught by word of mouth and by epistle. So Paul’s clear that Apostolic Tradition includes both Scripture and oral Tradition.

Besides Apostolic Tradition, there are other traditions which may be helpful. The rosary, for example, isn’t something we receive from the Apostles, and as such, isn’t an Apostolic Tradition binding upon all Christians (unlike, for example, the Lord’s Prayer). But it’s still a great religious devotion which the Church encourages.

You asked how we can know which traditions are Apostolic. Basically, the same way that we can know that it really was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who wrote the Gospels: by looking at the historical evidence, and by trusting in the Church.

This last point is important, and it’s pretty reasonable. Many non-Catholics mistakenly assume that what we refer to as oral Tradition is *never *written down. No. It’s just not written down by the Apostles themselves. So if Polycarp, a student of John’s, desribes John as teaching x, Polycarp’s writings are a testament to the oral Tradition, even though it’s written evidence. So the writings of the early Church Fathers are a great resource for determining what the Apostles taught.

The early Christians believed in Christ as God, were keenly aware of both Heaven and Hell, and were willing to give up everything for the sake of the Cross. They were intelligent, intense, passionate and faithful Christians. It was these men and women who were the first to testify that say, Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter but didn’t write the spurious “Apocalypse of Peter,” an old Gnostic forgery. They were careful and discerning in separating the word of God from human errors.

And they also form a direct link from the Apostles. Ireanaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. We have writings from Ireanaeus and Polycarp, as well, of course, as John. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes about the Eucharist in 107-110 A.D. on the way to his martyrdom, and he’s Bishop of Antioch - a prominent member of the early Church.

Finally, if you want a good grasp on the Church’s understanding of Scripture and Tradition, a great resource is the Catechism. There’s a good section here addressing this very issue. Hope that helps!

 

[AmateurPianist]

Although there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not written, and much the Apostles learned from Him that is not written, there is not a dichotomy between what is written in Scripture and what is the lived experience of God in the Church. Sacred Tradition is also a lifestyle, a way of walking with God (in the NT called “The Way”) which contains a world view. It is the Word of God alive and well in the Church.

Catholics know this because it has been faithfully handed down (paradosis) and because we believe Jesus at His word, that he would not abandon the Church, and that He would lead her into all Truth.

While it is the particular duty of the Magesterium to hold and transmit the faith of the church, it is the HS that preserves God’s Word, not men. And, it is preserved in all of those who are willing to cooperate with the HS to have His Word dwell in them. Therefore the consensus fidelum or consensus of faith among all the members of the Church also holds the Sacred Tradition along with the Magesterium. In either case, it is the HS that upholds them.

This is confusing to me. Again it sounds personified. Jesus is the Word of God alive and well in the church, at least that is what I believe.

The Orthodox have preserved the same Apostolic Sacred Tradition as we have, and believe that it is preserved, as we do, by the HS among the faithful.

Wait a minute. One thing I know is that you two are not identical. I have done enough reading on the Orthodox to know that. For starters they (obviously) deny the role of your Magisterium in preserving tradition. And (probably as a result of this) there are differences in what you two believe is “stuff that God wants us to know and believe today” and stuff that is “nice stories that may or may not be true”.

 

[LionHeart777]

God’s. Admittedly I do not understand the question.

I think my question was to ask you whose Bible you would use?

In response to your comment:

Or I can believe that the stuff that comes from the apostles and that God wants me to know and believe today was written down and is what is known as the Bible.

Also fyi, you might want to investigate the debate in Catholic circles regarding the “material sufficiency” of Scripture versus those who hold to a different view.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think my question was to ask you whose Bible you would use?

In response to your comment:

Also fyi, you might want to investigate the debate in Catholic circles regarding the “material sufficiency” of Scripture versus those who hold to a different view.

Ah…I use New American Standard Bible. But I could just as easily use something else…more my tradition I guess.

Ah…I remember this “material sufficiency vs. formal sufficiency”. Something like "all Catholic traditions are in the Bible to some extent. But they are not so easy to get that one would expect one to get it with just the Bible.

I don’t know why but this sort of reminds me of a book claiming that it was in the Bible that Jesus was coming back in 1988. He extracted all types of Scriptures to prove his point. Dang whether I saw it in there (it sort of read like the Bible code to me) but this author claimed it was. I guess my point is that once you are into “It’s in the Bible but you aren’t going to get it by reading the Bible”, there then can be no limit to the creativity that one can use when reading and interpreting the Bible.

 

[Zooey]

Excellent!!! A Protestant contributing to this thread. Now all we need is an Orthodox person.

You mentioned John Wesley! How could I resist?

So in the interest of getting various perspectives here:

How would you define tradition? I am working with two definitions in my head: (1) The oral teaching of Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church (2) The “deposit of faith” which in the vernacular is “the stuff that God wants us to know and believe today” (I have to understand things using nonSpiritual words in order to understand things). Do these definitions work for you?

Yes, that makes sense to me.

How is tradition preserved? In other words how do we in 2010 know which stuff that someone might claim is an oral teaching of Christ to the apostles or a part of stuff that God wants us to know and believe today is actually true or when you get down to it a 2000 year old urban legend (now we all agree that tradition is preserved via that Bible, I suspect the disagreement is in other methods and the authority level of other methods). If you claim that tradition is preserved via other methods, what is the authority level of these other methods versus Scripture?

Well…that’s why we need all four points of Wesley’s teaching. The problems arise when we try to divorce one of them from the others, and ignore anything that doesn’t please us.
We have:

1. 
   *]Scripture
   *]Tradition
   *]Experience (our own & that of others)
   *]Logic/common sense
   

   Ah…and I see you mention the Wesley Quadrangle. When I came across that in my reading, it made a whole lot of sense. Would you say that the thing about “history” is about the same anyway as “tradition”.

   Yes…except that history would also cover, in some ways, experience as well. So that, for example, John Wesley’s own writings are not “tradition”; they don’t go back far enough into history. But they can be used under the heading of “experience”.
   As can, for example, the writings of my favorite, St Teresa of Avila…Two well-known & deeply devout Christians who have left us a body of works in writing, they aren’t the Early Church Fathers, but they are well worth listening to.
   And then there is common sense (which,as my grandmother used to tell me, is “very uncommon”). If something makes no sense at all, when stacked u against the Bible, Tradition, & the experiences of holy men & women throughout the history of the church, there is a very, very good chance–nearly a certainly–that the thing which is senseless is a thing which is untrue.
   
   I really do hope this helps!!

 

[LionHeart777]

Amateur Pianast,

thanks for responding again. I mean whose Canon of Scripture. The Catholic Canon, the Greek Orthodox Canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, or the Canon that many Protestants use with only 66 books? They are all different. So how are you sure which one to use if you were going with the “plan b” you had mentioned.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Amateur Pianast,

thanks for responding again. I mean whose Canon of Scripture. The Catholic Canon, the Greek Orthodox Canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, or the Canon that many Protestants use with only 66 books? They are all different. So how are you sure which one to use if you were going with the “plan b” you had mentioned.

It is my understanding that all of the above have a common New Testament. The differences in the above being the set of books called either Deuterocanonicals or Apocrypha. And these books all predate Jesus Christ,

So if the definition of tradition would be the teachings of Jesus Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church, all of the above are in disagreement,

I know this is sort of passing the buck, but this is a topic I refuse to debate. I think the right metric would be the set of books used by Jesus Christ (since He never gripes about His Bible being long or short), but as to what that might be I have not encountered the definitive answer.