B
Big_Dummy
Guest
We know that the church fathers quotes scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition? any ideas?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Moontown_Rabbit
Guest
Chances are you have heard this before, but if you check the historical record you will find that the Bible was compiled by the Council of Carthage in 397. The various gospels and letters of the Bible were written before this, but it was by the authority of the Catholic Church that some writings were selected and others rejected. The term Catholic was applied to the Church as early as 170, perhaps earlier. Our scripture is therefore entirely part of Catholic tradition, and not the other way around. You cannot point to any scripture that does not obtain its legitimacy from Catholic tradition working in union with the Holy Spirit.
Moontown Rabbit,
I think the first reference to catholic is in c. 170 when Ignatius wrote to the Smyrneans (8:2):
I think the first reference to catholic is in c. 170 when Ignatius wrote to the Smyrneans (8:2):
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999),Wherever ever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.
B
Barbkw
Guest
“…where does scripture quote catholic tradition?”
Please clarify what your understanding is of the term “catholic tradition”.
It tends to be explained in wildly different ways by people.
Technically, Catholics call it Apostolic Tradition:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm
THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
Please clarify what your understanding is of the term “catholic tradition”.
It tends to be explained in wildly different ways by people.
Technically, Catholics call it Apostolic Tradition:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm
THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
- in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
Z
zarthan
Guest
In a certain sense, all of scripture is a compilation of church tradition. By 250 AD, most if not all of what we call the Catholic canon of scripture had been quoted by the early church fathers. There is very little that was quoted by the early church fathers that was not of the scriptures that we have today.
Possibly, Bishop Clement’s first letter, possibly the Shepherd of Hermas were quoted by the early church fathers, and of course they quoted from Greek philosophy from time to time, but they did not regard such philosophical writings as the word of God.
In a general sense, tradition was referred to in this scripture:
Douay-Rheims Bible 2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, **whether by word, **or by our epistle.
So, one can only speculate as to the content of these oral traditions. I do think the **Constitutions of the Apostles **contained quite a bit of this oral tradition.
Possibly, Bishop Clement’s first letter, possibly the Shepherd of Hermas were quoted by the early church fathers, and of course they quoted from Greek philosophy from time to time, but they did not regard such philosophical writings as the word of God.
In a general sense, tradition was referred to in this scripture:
Douay-Rheims Bible 2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, **whether by word, **or by our epistle.
So, one can only speculate as to the content of these oral traditions. I do think the **Constitutions of the Apostles **contained quite a bit of this oral tradition.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Actually, that Ignatius letter is the year 107-110 A.D. or so.
As to the OP, a couple examples are in the book of Jude. In Jude 1:9 we are told about the fight between Satan and Michael the Archangel over the body of Moses. This tale is also included in an extra-biblical text called “The Assumption of Moses.” Jude either acquired the story via oral tradition or understood by tradition that that particular part of the Assumption of Moses was true.
Jude 1:14-15 also quotes from the extra-biblical text of 1 Enoch 1:9 , and in the same way, Jude knows this truth by tradition, since Enoch is not considered Scriptural either.
Here is another copy-paste from the web:
From David Palm In 2 Timothy 3:8, Paul gives names for the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharaoh’s court — Jannes and Jambres — but no names are given for these men when the scene appears in the Old Testament (Exodus 7:8ff). Though Paul is referring to an Old Testament scene, he is not just using the Old Testament.
In James 5:17 we read, “Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.” When we look this scene up in the Old Testament, it says nothing about Elijah praying (1 Kings 17).
In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, we read about a rock following Moses and the Israelites in the desert. The scene in question, though, in the Old Testament, says nothing about the rock following them around (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13).
In Matthew 2:23, we read, “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” All of the other “fulfillment sayings” in Matthew like this (that is, when something happens, and then Matthew says “and so it was fulfilled”) refer to prophecies in the Old Testament (1:22, 2:15, 4:14-16, etc.), but this particular prophecy does not appear in the Old Testament at all.
In Matthew 23:2-4, we find Jesus saying an odd thing. His disciples, at least for the time being, have to observe whatever the Pharisees ask of them, even though the Pharisees are very corrupt, as Jesus goes on to describe at length (Matthew 23:5-39). Nevertheless, whatever their private character, the Pharisees have authority because they “sit in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2-3). You will not find any reference to the important teaching office of “Moses’ seat” in the Old Testament.
As to the OP, a couple examples are in the book of Jude. In Jude 1:9 we are told about the fight between Satan and Michael the Archangel over the body of Moses. This tale is also included in an extra-biblical text called “The Assumption of Moses.” Jude either acquired the story via oral tradition or understood by tradition that that particular part of the Assumption of Moses was true.
Jude 1:14-15 also quotes from the extra-biblical text of 1 Enoch 1:9 , and in the same way, Jude knows this truth by tradition, since Enoch is not considered Scriptural either.
Here is another copy-paste from the web:
From David Palm In 2 Timothy 3:8, Paul gives names for the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharaoh’s court — Jannes and Jambres — but no names are given for these men when the scene appears in the Old Testament (Exodus 7:8ff). Though Paul is referring to an Old Testament scene, he is not just using the Old Testament.
In James 5:17 we read, “Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.” When we look this scene up in the Old Testament, it says nothing about Elijah praying (1 Kings 17).
In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, we read about a rock following Moses and the Israelites in the desert. The scene in question, though, in the Old Testament, says nothing about the rock following them around (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13).
In Matthew 2:23, we read, “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” All of the other “fulfillment sayings” in Matthew like this (that is, when something happens, and then Matthew says “and so it was fulfilled”) refer to prophecies in the Old Testament (1:22, 2:15, 4:14-16, etc.), but this particular prophecy does not appear in the Old Testament at all.
In Matthew 23:2-4, we find Jesus saying an odd thing. His disciples, at least for the time being, have to observe whatever the Pharisees ask of them, even though the Pharisees are very corrupt, as Jesus goes on to describe at length (Matthew 23:5-39). Nevertheless, whatever their private character, the Pharisees have authority because they “sit in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2-3). You will not find any reference to the important teaching office of “Moses’ seat” in the Old Testament.
Z
zarthan
Guest
Excellent post by Marco Polo. These are references that sometimes slip through our memory.
There is also the Book of Jasher (Yasher) that is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and II Sam. 1:17 and it has some mystery behind it as to whether the version that now exists is legitimate.
Also, Jesus mentions a few of the traditions of Judaism, which were current in his day, but not found in scripture. He also celebrated the yearly feast of Dedication, which is during Hannakuh, which is not found in scripture. (Macabbees mention the story, but not necessarily the yearly Dedication)
There is also the Book of Jasher (Yasher) that is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and II Sam. 1:17 and it has some mystery behind it as to whether the version that now exists is legitimate.
Also, Jesus mentions a few of the traditions of Judaism, which were current in his day, but not found in scripture. He also celebrated the yearly feast of Dedication, which is during Hannakuh, which is not found in scripture. (Macabbees mention the story, but not necessarily the yearly Dedication)
Can I please thank and congratulate Zarthan, MarcoPolo and others for their scholarship, commitment and faithfulness to the Church?
I read from MP:
I wrote 170, but I meant 107. Sorry.
But there is also the possibility that Ignatius wrote in the 130s (Brent), 140s (Barnes) or 125-150 (Foster), even though the generally accepted date is 107 - 110 or so. Joseph Barber Lightfoot claimed the Letters of Ignatius were written ‘within a few years of AD 110 , before of after’
It is also interesting to note that in the early Church some texts now not considered as Scripture were considered scriptural, as inferred by Z.
I read from MP:
.Actually, that Ignatius letter is the year 107-110 A.D. or so
I wrote 170, but I meant 107. Sorry.
But there is also the possibility that Ignatius wrote in the 130s (Brent), 140s (Barnes) or 125-150 (Foster), even though the generally accepted date is 107 - 110 or so. Joseph Barber Lightfoot claimed the Letters of Ignatius were written ‘within a few years of AD 110 , before of after’
It is also interesting to note that in the early Church some texts now not considered as Scripture were considered scriptural, as inferred by Z.
In several early codices the following were included with texts now in the NT: 1 & 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache.(Possibly, Bishop Clement’s first letter, possibly the Shepherd of Hermas were quoted by the early church fathers).
E
Erich
Guest
It is quite possible that the name “the Catholic Church” (Greek: katholikos ekklesia) developed from Acts 9:31 “the Church throughout all” (Greek: ekklesia kath olos)I think the first reference to catholic is in c. 170 [sic] when Ignatius wrote to the Smyrneans
Z
zarthan
Guest
I could see why Clement, Ignatius. Polycarp, Hermas and the Didache would be included, but Barnabas is a bit puzzling. This information is also useful to know.Can I please thank and congratulate Zarthan, MarcoPolo and others for their scholarship, commitment and faithfulness to the Church?
I read from MP:
.
I wrote 170, but I meant 107. Sorry.
But there is also the possibility that Ignatius wrote in the 130s (Brent), 140s (Barnes) or 125-150 (Foster), even though the generally accepted date is 107 - 110 or so. Joseph Barber Lightfoot claimed the Letters of Ignatius were written ‘within a few years of AD 110 , before of after’
It is also interesting to note that in the early Church some texts now not considered as Scripture were considered scriptural, as inferred by Z.
In several early codices the following were included with texts now in the NT: 1 & 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache.
Let’s thank God together for whatever gifts he gives us that are used for the good of his church…
God bless you too.
K
kepha1
Guest
Catholic tradition predates scripture. Tradition, as well explained in the above posts, is a different mode of transmission of God’s revelation. That does not mean it is inferior to the written Word, it means that it is different, yet complimentary. Without Tradition you would have no Bible, because the authority of Scripture is a Tradition. The Apostles did not read from a New Testament, they spoke it for 20+ years before the first NT word was written. The Bible was not the focus of Christian activity for centuries, primarily because they had no “Bible” as we know it and few people could read. The Gospel message was proclaimed by the ordained, not individual scripture readers.We know that the church fathers quotes scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition? any ideas?
Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
**kepha1 **
You wrote:
Zarthan,
I think Barnabas was considered as Scripture, because it was assumed it was written by Barnabas, the companion of Paul.
It is included, with other scriptural writings, in the following codices: Sinaiticus, Hierosolymitanus and Vaticanus gracus 859.
Erich,
I do not think I would agree with you about Acts 9:31.
You wrote:
I would not agree; the OT, which is scripture, is far older than Catholic Tradition.Catholic tradition predates scripture.
Zarthan,
I think Barnabas was considered as Scripture, because it was assumed it was written by Barnabas, the companion of Paul.
It is included, with other scriptural writings, in the following codices: Sinaiticus, Hierosolymitanus and Vaticanus gracus 859.
Erich,
I do not think I would agree with you about Acts 9:31.
E
Erich
Guest
The reason I think it’s a possibility is because when St. Ignatius wrote, in his Letter to the Smyrneans in 110 AD, “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” it does not strike me that he made up the phrase “Catholic Church” on the spot, but rather he used an existing phrase whose meaning was already clear not just to himself, but to the Smyrneans as well (i.e. the phrase “Catholic Church” must have been in common usage for a while already, for both the sender and the recipients of a letter to know what was being talked about).Erich,
I do not think I would agree with you about Acts 9:31.
Luke probably wrote his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles no later than 70 AD (based on what events are included and omitted from his account); a lot can happen in 40 years!*
I
Ignatius
Guest
All of it quotes Sacred Tradition. Actually, Scripture is Sacred Tradition. It was handed down as Sacred Tradition for 50 years or more before it was written down. Along with that, of course, is the correct understanding of Scripture passages. The Pillar and foundation of Truth is The Church.We know that the church fathers quotes scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition?
C
CalCatholic
Guest
**“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book…” (John 20:30, RSV)We know that the church fathers quotes scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition? any ideas?
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were everyone of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25, RSV)**
Do you think that all those other things that Jesus did and taught his disciples that are not contained in the Bible were just discarded and forgotten about? No I don’t think so, they were passed on from the Apostles to their successors (through the Church) in oral tradition.
I
Ignatius
Guest
All of it quotes Sacred Tradition. Actually, Scripture is Sacred Tradition. It was handed down as Sacred Tradition for 50 years or more before any of it was written down. Along with that, of course, is the correct understanding of Scripture passages. The Pillar and foundation of Truth is The Church.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Holy Scripture is Sacred Tradition. It was handed down as Sacred Tradition for 50 years or more before any of it was written down. However the most important Sacred Traditions are 1) What books constitute Holy Scripture and 2) the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture.All of it quotes Sacred Tradition. Actually, Scripture is Sacred Tradition. It was handed down as Sacred Tradition for 50 years or more before it was written down. Along with that, of course, is the correct understanding of Scripture passages. The Pillar and foundation of Truth is The Church.
Sorry for being so picky (pedantic), but I find trying to look at things precisely helps me clarify my own ideas.
Ignatius
For the record, I consider sacred scripture and tradition to be different.
Erich
Ignatius mentioned the* catholic church*, meaning the universal church. The* Catholic Church* in the modern sense was not used by him. In early texts all letters were upper case (capitals), so one cannot distinguish upper and lower case letters.
Acts has in 9:31
ἐκκλησία καθʼ ὅλης (church in the whole…),
while Ignatius has in ISmyr 8:2
ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (there (is) the catholic church).
It is a coincidence that in English ἐκκλησία καθʼ ὅλης (EKKLASIA KATH hOLAS) sounds like* Catholic Church*.
Ignatius
For the record, I consider sacred scripture and tradition to be different.
Erich
Ignatius mentioned the* catholic church*, meaning the universal church. The* Catholic Church* in the modern sense was not used by him. In early texts all letters were upper case (capitals), so one cannot distinguish upper and lower case letters.
Acts has in 9:31
ἐκκλησία καθʼ ὅλης (church in the whole…),
while Ignatius has in ISmyr 8:2
ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (there (is) the catholic church).
It is a coincidence that in English ἐκκλησία καθʼ ὅλης (EKKLASIA KATH hOLAS) sounds like* Catholic Church*.
E
Erich
Guest
It would be more correct to say that sacred scripture is a subset of sacred tradition.Ignatius
For the record, I consider sacred scripture and tradition to be different.
In answer to the question posed in the OP (“where does scripture quote tradition”), here are some examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Great oaks from little acorns grow. Ignatius probably did not (could not?) imagine that the universal church would grow into what it is today.Erich
Ignatius mentioned the* catholic church*, meaning the universal church. The* Catholic Church* in the modern sense was not used by him.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
book mark
So, the Bible never quotes any of the church fathers, is this correct?
So, the Bible never quotes any of the church fathers, is this correct?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.