Where does scripture quote catholic tradition?

[Ignatius]

book mark

So, the Bible never quotes any of the church fathers, is this correct?

The Church Fathers were post apostolic, so the question is mute. Holy Scripture is actually part of Sacred Tradition as I pointed out aboveand was passed down for several generations before beginning to be written down.
To attempt to divide Scripture and Tradition is a false dichotomy.

To clarify, Holy Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition that was written down and collected by The Church into a Canon.

 

[dtg]

Possibly, you’re thinking of something like the eucharist.

---

The Bible in a Verse

But now once at the conclusion of the ages Jesus has
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 9: 26b

 

[NoelFitz]

BD

Question:
So, the Bible never quotes any of the church fathers, is this correct?

Simple Answer:
Yes

Ignatius:

You say Fathers were post-apostolic. This may not be fully so. Clement wrote about 96 AD and some NT texts are later than this.

Also it is debated whether Matthew was influenced by the Didache, or the other way round, presuming there was influence.

 

[Big_Dummy]

fair enough, why are there no writings of church fathers that predate or were written during the time of the writtings of the NT? What are the eariliest church fathers that may overlap? And, were any of those that overlap quoted in the NT? Didache, Shepard of Hermas, ???

 

[bnapgh]

I subscribe to the set theory: Holy Scripture is a distinct subset of Tradition recognized officially by the Church based strictly upon Tradition.

The Council excluded all those writings (e.g. Gospels of Peter, Mary Mag., etc.) which in their entirety were not aligned with Tradition, and it included those writings which were congruent with Tradition.

As for the OP question, since Scripture is a ‘’subset’’ it would be circular for the inspired writers to then quote Tradition.

That said, the Scriptures do explain Tradition in John 1:25:

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Are we to believe that the Apostles chose to ignore these ‘’other things’’ in their teachings, or that the Paraclete withheld His promised protection (John 14:16) from anything not transcribed before the centennial?

Jesus directed the Apostles to ‘’teach’’ the Gospel (the ‘’good news’’, not the four books of M,M,L&J, per se) to all nations, not to ‘’document’’ it. Peter, James, John and Paul all ‘’write’’ synopses or explanations of all that they had previously ‘’told’’ disciples.

 

[Big_Dummy]

"As for the OP question, since Scripture is a ‘’subset’’ it would be circular for the inspired writers to then quote Tradition. "

Since the Fathers like the Bible are various books by various authors, it would not be circular logic at all. Otherwise, we would have circular logic in the Bible itself.

The absence of church fathers writting during the time of NT writting raises questions about or like, why the gap? As a historian, I would expect that there would be church fathers writing at the same time the NT was being written – after all there where church leaders and other teachers besides the Apostles in that time period.

Is there any record of missing writings of church fathers in the NT writting period?

 

[bnapgh]

John 1:25:

Are we to believe that the Apostles chose to ignore these ‘’other things’’ in their teachings, or that the Paraclete withheld His promised protection (John 14:16) from anything not transcribed before the centennial?

Jesus directed the Apostles to ‘’teach’’ the Gospel (the ‘’good news’’, not the four books of M,M,L&J, per se) to all nations, not to ‘’document’’ it. Peter, James, John and Paul all ‘’write’’ synopses or explanations of all that they had previously ‘’told’’ disciples.

Further, in Matthew 28:18:

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

‘‘All’’ means everything. ‘‘Whatsoever’’ implies even things that really seem insignificant.

Now, with that specific charter, directly from Christ, does it make sense that the Apostolic Church would then choose to ignore or diminish ‘‘all the things’’ that could not be transcribed in all the books the world can hold?

And I doubt by ‘‘even to the consummation of the world.’’ that Jesus meant to say until John the beloved dies (circa 90 AD).

 

[bnapgh]

Since the Fathers like the Bible are various books by various authors, it would not be circular logic at all. Otherwise, we would have circular logic in the Bible itself.

Let’s go back to your OP:

We know that the church fathers quote scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition? any ideas?

Every time Peter refers to Paul, or Paul refers to Timothy, or Luke refers to Peter, these men are ‘‘quoting Catholic tradition’’ because all of their writings and teachings are part-and-parcel of this Tradition. The respective scriptures-writers did not call it ‘‘Tradition’’ per se; they (John, Matthew, etc) used expressions such as ‘‘as I have taught’’ or ‘‘as Paul has taught’’ or ‘‘all things’’ not transcribed.

The only reason any of these authors’ works are included in what you call scripture is because the Catholic Church Council ruled that they were consistent with the oral tradition handed down to them and protected by the Paraclete.

The absence of church fathers writing during the time of NT writing raises questions about or like, why the gap? As a historian, I would expect that there would be church fathers writing at the same time the NT was being written – after all there where church leaders and other teachers besides the Apostles in that time period.

I am pleased that you are a historian! But, alas, you are the first historian I have encountered who has not taken all of the writing-gaps in history not only as a ‘‘given’’ but as the raison d’être for their profession, itself. The amazing thing is that 2,000 years later there survives ANY written corroboration of the Paraclete-protected tradition and scripture.

The rabbinical tradition was oral more than written. Two centuries later in his Confessions St. Augustine expressed amazement that his mentor would often actually read silently to himself, for until then reading was generally ‘‘out loud’’ and viewed as a secondary way of listening to the teachings of the Fathers, much like listening to a tape or CD today when one cannot hear a speech or concert in person.

At that time writing at all was exceptional.

Is there any record of missing writings of church fathers in the NT writing period?

At first this, too, seems circular but there are records referencing some writings which themselves do not survive. One of Plato’s works comes to mind. But, alas, I know of no such references for the Church Fathers. Then, again, I am a pilgrim, not a scholar.

I am confused about what it is you are seeking. Are you confusing the ‘‘writings of the early Church Fathers’’ with ‘‘Church Tradition’’? They are very different.

Church Tradition is mostly oral (all of the ‘‘things’’ which John says Jesus taught but which could not be written) — but (miraculously to us humans) Tradition is still reliable because Tradition is protected by the Paraclete ‘‘until the consumation of the earth.’’

Do you want an ancient writing that uses the term ‘‘Church Tradition’’, per se?

I suspect that such a search will be futile because all of this oral teaching — which we now identify and categorize as ‘‘Catholic Tradition’’ — had been, during the first century, not categorized at all but taken as normal, everyday instruction.

During Lincoln’s presidency historians and school teachers did not refer to Abe’s collected writings, because they had yet to be collected. Until a modern editorial writer chooses to compile his/her articles in a book, no one can refer to such a book.

Such categorization is not contemporaneous, but ex post.

And finally teachers almost never cite or quote their pupils. While the Apostles were around there were plenty of bishops consecrated, but it would be surprising to hear Paul quote Timothy as a reference.

That said, there is significant evidence quoted in scripture which inductively demonstrates that the majority of apostolic communication was oral, not written. ‘‘For the whole world could not hold all the books that would be needed…’’

 

[NoelFitz]

BD

You wrote:

fair enough, why are there no writings of church fathers that predate or were written during the time of the writtings of the NT? What are the eariliest church fathers that may overlap? And, were any of those that overlap quoted in the NT? Didache, Shepard of Hermas, ???

There may have been writings of Church Fathers that predate the NT.

The earliest Fathers were (dates may be incorrect, as scholars do not agree):

Clement 96 AD
Ignatius 107
Polycarp 109
Barnabas 120
Didache mid first century ???
Papias 120 ???
Quadratus 120 ???

Thus at least some of these might predate some NT texts.

 

[mangy_dog]

We know that the church fathers quotes scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition? any ideas?

Philippians Chapter 4 verses 8 and 9.

 

[bnapgh]

That said, the Scriptures do explain Tradition in John 1:25:

This citation was a typo. It should have read John 21:25.

 

[Erich]

why are there no writings of church fathers that predate or were written during the time of the writtings of the NT? What are the eariliest church fathers that may overlap?

From What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum Teach?

For 2000 years the Church has taught that two Apostles, who had lived with Christ wrote gospels and two men, who knew some of the Apostles, wrote another two. All four should be treated as reliable historical documents.

In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued Dei Verbum as a Doctrinal Constitution. In this the Church restated her teaching, as may be seen from reading an extract from Sections 7. The following is as translated by Walter Abbott, S.J. and published in: ‘The Documents of Vatican II’ of the same year:

“This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by ordinances, handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men **who **under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing”.
…

Extracts from Sections 18 and 19 of Dei Verbum support the meaning given by Abbott and the Vatican website:
“The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold, that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached, in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed onto us in writing: … the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”.

“… the four Gospels just named, **whose historical character the Church **unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation…”
So the companions of Jesus wrote two Gospels and others, using second-hand information, wrote two. If all four depended on second-hand information, the Fathers of the Council would not have made a distinction between the two sets of authors.

…

When section 19 of Dei Verbum was being drafted at the 2nd. Vatican Council, it was suggested that the phrase: “believed and continues to believe” should be used, as it was a truth always accepted in the Church through an act of faith. But: “held and continues to hold”, was adopted because the historicity of the gospels was a truth which could be accessed by both faith and reason, not by faith alone.

During the first two centuries of the Church, apostolic authority (though not necessarily apostolic authorship) was the primary criterion used to decide whether or not to keep a particular writing… there are certainly writings of church fathers that predate or were written during the time of the writtings of the NT (the Didache comes to mind), but these writings would not have been considered canonical.

 

[NoelFitz]

Erich,
I am not sure what points you are making. I do not think anyone disagrees that we have four gospels in the NT.

 

[Ignatius]

"As for the OP question, since Scripture is a ‘’subset’’ it would be circular for the inspired writers to then quote Tradition. "

Not circular, sequential. ALL of Sacred Tradition was passed down within The Church. Some of that Sacred Tradition was eventually written down and collected into the Canon of what we now call The New Testament under guidance of The Holy Spirit. IOW, Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.

 

[NoelFitz]

Scripture and tradition are different. This is clear from the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

 

[bnapgh]

{emphasis added: BNA}

Scripture and tradition are different. This is clear from the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, **come together **in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to** the successors of the apostles **so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition **must be accepted and honored **with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

To me the most helpful phrase is this:

‘’**Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God **which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles ‘’

Note it says ‘‘Tradition’’ and ‘‘in its entirety the Word of God’’. It does not say ‘‘Tradition and Holy Scriptures’’.

I like the term ‘‘seperate transmission’’. The quote says it ‘‘transmits it to the successors of the apostles’’, not to the Church, because the Church is the entire Mystical Body, and, while we members who are not Apostolic successors may perceive some of the transmission, we must ‘‘accept and honor’’ all of it because the promise of the Paraclete to the Apostles successors is both seperate and assured .

So there is one common Source:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divine Inspiration.
Only one of the two has The Word in its ‘‘entirity’’: . . … . . . . . . . . . . … . . . Tradition
The ‘‘entire’’ transmission is assured only to a part of the Church: . . . . . . Apostolic Successors
The whole Church must ‘‘accept and honor’’ BOTH Scripture and Tradition with equal devotion and reverence

Works for me!

 

[bnapgh]

IOW, Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.

Agreed, Holy Scriptures is a subset of Sacred Tradition that appears to the whole Church as if it were a different transmission.

If the entire U S Constitution were to be transmitted solely to the Supreme Court Justices via the US Postal Service BUT only the amendments thereof were transmitted to all Americans via email, then while the average Americans would get a pretty good idea of their political protections, it would be only the Supreme Court which would have the full document for complete interpretation. Nonetheless the average American must honor and obey the Supreme Court rulings. But in this weak analogy the Supreme Court would not have the Paraclete to assure its interpretations of the complete constitution were accurate.

 

[inkaneer]

We know that the church fathers quotes scripture, but where does scripture quote catholic tradition? any ideas?

Well it is all Catholic Tradition. So pick a verse any verse and you have it. Your question seems to imply that there is a difference between the two Traditions. There is not. Both emanate from the same source, the Holy Spirit. When the Bible canon was being compiled the one overiding requirement of any work selected for inclusion was that support the Oral Tradition. So all of scripture quotes Catholic Tradition. By the way the word ‘Tradition’ when referring to Catholic or Apostolic Tradition is capitalized [upper case “T”] to differentiate it as "teaching’’ as opposed to a habit or custom.

 

[Erich]

Erich,
I am not sure what points you are making. I do not think anyone disagrees that we have four gospels in the NT.

I was attempting to respond to the questions “why are there no writings of church fathers that predate or were written during the time of the writtings of the NT?” and “What are the eariliest church fathers that may overlap?”

As for the writings of church fathers that predate or were written during the time of the writtings of the NT, an obvious (to me, anyway) question would be, “Then, why aren’t these writings included in the NT to begin with?” The answer to that would most likely be, while they would have been written during the first two centuries of the Church, they probably lack direct apostolic authority.

As for the earliest church fathers that may overlap, the Didache came to mind. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the Didache:

The Didache contains some material that is also in Matthew and Luke, rather a lot that is only in Matthew, and much that is not in any of the canonized gospels, but—and this is remarkable—it contains virtually nothing that is found in Mark. How could that have happened? If the Didache was based on Matthew, as most New Testament scholars assume, how did the writer manage to exclude virtually everything that Matthew copied from Mark? And even if he had both of those gospels open in front of him, why would he want to do that?

A more likely hypothesis is:

Sayings of Jesus were probably in wide circulation in both oral and written form. The Didache refers to a collection of the sayings of Jesus known as “The Gospel of the Lord” but none of the four canonized gospels. Mark wrote his Gospel based on the preaching of Peter, as most New Testament scholars maintain. Matthew had the Didache and copied from it as he did from Mark: that would explain the origin of the passages that are only in the Didache and Matthew. Luke compiled his Gospel from several sources, including Mark, but he did not have the Didache.

Because I happen to agree with the Clementine tradition which holds that the order in which the gospels were written (Matthew - Luke - Mark - John) differs from the order in which they were *published *(Matthew - Mark - Luke - John), I think the more likely hypothesis is the simpler one… the Didache contains material that is also in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark simply because Mark hadn’t been written yet (meaning, the Didache had to have been written prior to the time of Nero’s persecutions, which began in 64 AD).

The above-referenced Wikipedia article agrees…

Certainly Barnabas and Paul were “The Apostles to the Gentiles.” If the Didache is a sample of their teaching, as it certainly seems to be, then it must be dated no later than AD 49 because that was when they went their separate ways. The most probable date is either AD 44 or AD 47. In either case, those dates are earlier than anything in the New Testament. Therefore, I believe the Didache is the earliest Christian document we have. Although rightly regarded as a church handbook and not a Gospel or absolutely based on the teachings of Jesus, it provides valuable insights concerning the moral doctrines, theology, rituals, esoteric operations and congregational testing of apostles and prophets, and the basic organization of First Century Christianity.

…though I don’t know who the “I” (in the middle of the above paragraph) is.

 

[inkaneer]

Re: where does scripture quote catholic tradition?

This is somewhat amusing. I say that because scripture itself is Catholic Tradition. The Bible does not give us an inspired table of contents. That canon of writings we all hold to be inspired of God comes to us from Catholic Tradition. That is unless you believe that protestant fairy tale of sometime in the Middle Ages the Bible dropped down out of heaven leather bound, gilt edged in the King’s English and with the words of Jesus in red ink. I don’t know anybody who still believes that but hey, it’s possible.