Which came first? Scripture or Tradition?

[jhookjoe]

1st of all, what I think doesn’t matter. As a faithful Catholic, I am obedient to the Catholic faith. I could be Einstein and I would never be able to master the more than 2000 years of tradition. When someone like me starts off with, “My opinion is, ect…” we should with charity and mercey listen and refer to the truth of the Catholic faith.
Obviously, Tradition came 1st because scripture wasn’t in biblical form until the Pope, successor of Peter, commissioned Jerome to translate from Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew to the Latin in 400AD, In 1400 with the invention of the printing press by Guttenberg, Catholic Bibles were affordable by the average Christian. That is where Scripture really starts guiding then eventually rewritten by Luther to suit different immoral disciplines.
Aside from the 4 gospels, scripture consisted of the various letters spoken by apostles and profits to scribes to their various churches.
Apostles were consecrated by Jesus and by the decent of Holy Spirit and the disciples and the church fathers. The martyrs of the early church did not have scriptures to refer to for guidance. They only had tradition and they suffered and died for it. All they had was tradition handed down from Jesus to Peter, ect…
You will never here that from Protestant, Baptist and non-denomination churches and ministers because that would put them out of a job. When you do here it from them, they are bravely and obediently answering God’s call to be Catholic.
Free will comes with responsibility. With out responsibility can easily lead to disobedience.

 

[zarthan]

It is more correct to say that the oral teachings of Jesus Christ came before the written teachings of Jesus Christ. Tradition(s) may or may not conform to the original teachings of Jesus Christ given to His disciples.

Even Jesus Christ reprimanded certain scribes and Pharisees of His day regarding their traditions: Mark 7:13 “You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.”

Hegesippus (A.D.170) a Jewish Christian wrote "Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrrupted:for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching “knowledge falsely so called”. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII).

Hegesippus as well as Irenaeus spoke of the gnosticism that entered the Church through the various offshoots of gnostic sects that originated with Simon Magus. This is the Simon Magus of which the apostle Peter said, “For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23).

After listing the various sects, Hegesippus continues: “Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles…men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ”.

We need to guard our hearts from bitterness, and our minds from the errors of gnosticism.
Let us remember our foundational truths as written by the apostle Paul :“you…are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through Him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord.” (Ephesians 2:20-21) And, “…Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or and such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

“The end of the commandment is the love of God out of a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith”. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ keep all of his flock and those who are sincerely seeking the truth…

 

[Protestant101]

The only problem with what is being said here is that the Bible declares that God’s Word came first.

“In the beginning was the word; and the word was with God, and the word was God…”

Because “tradition” is oral; it is impossible to verify it except by Scripture.

The Bible commends one type of “tradition” and condemns another type. Protestants believe that Catholics have these two types of traditions very confused to the point that it cannot all be verified by scripture anymore.

And lets start to think this through better. Is the only requirement to qualify as “Catholic Tradition” that it be orally presented? If this is the case; which many forum members here seem to think it is; then it leaves the door open to anyone who wants to come along and say whatever they want, and just call it “tradition.”

Your own history/traditon tells stories about two Popes, supposedly both a successor of Peter, and fighting over who was the real boss.

The only kind of traditon that the Bible supports is that which communicates the gospel, and the love of Christ, according to the Scripture.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The word of God was given directly by the Lord, sometimes by the Father, or the Son, or through the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt that those who received the word of God taught it orally but then later wrote it down, or wrote down a summary of what they were taught such as Mark and Luke.

But there is a distinction between the oral teachings that were given at the time when Scripture was being written or prior to that and the DEVELOPED TRADITION that was necessary a century after the written word and the centuries after until our present day. The developed Tradition is the result of the need of definitions of the Faith in order to clarify obscurities of the written word and the heresies that developed from misunderstandings, and to explain and instruct Christians who face new challenges and cultural changes that evolve over time such as things that other generations have never faced. As St. Vincient said, “There were as many interpretations of the Bible as there are words in it.” That is why Tradition is soooo important. The Catholic Church is the only place where you have infallible Apostolic Tradition in which our Tradition is traced all the way back to the Apostles.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Because “tradition” is oral; it is impossible to verify it except by Scripture.

The above ignores the question, what verifyies Scripture?

Well, Tradition verifies Scripture. That is, does Scripture conform to what we already believe? If not, then it is not Scripture. That is how the pre-existing Christians decided what of their writings were to be considered Scripture.

Indeed, the Word comes first. The Word, Jesus, founds the Church, then the Church founds Scripture. Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church, the Holy Spirit also guided the Church in its writing of Scripture. It is a Tradition of the Church that Scripture is inspired.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The only problem with what is being said here is that the Bible declares that God’s Word came first.

“In the beginning was the word; and the word was with God, and the word was God…”

That’s a reference to Jesus, not the Bible. The Bible never once calls itself the Word of God. The Bible says that “Scripture is inspired by God,” but that’s not the same thing, and for that matter, the Apostles are also inspired directly by Jesus. John 20:22.

 

[hartleymartin]

Have you ever wondered what the purpose of the reading were at the Mass?

The Liturgy of the Word has it’s origins in a few simple historical facts:

1.) Most people were illiterate, but had a good memory for spoken word.
2.) Written texts were rare and valuable because they had to be hand-made.
3.) Remember something along the lines of six days you shall labour, but the seventh is set aside for God…

Protestantism would never have been possible without the printing press, mass literacy and education.

Quite a few will say things like no-one speaks Latin, so the Catholic Church was trying to hide the true faith in the Bible from the people. Balderdash! Latin was still commonly taught in schools and universities, right up until the 20th Century!

 

[Protestant101]

Have you ever wondered what the purpose of the reading were at the Mass?

The Liturgy of the Word has it’s origins in a few simple historical facts:

1.) Most people were illiterate, but had a good memory for spoken word.
2.) Written texts were rare and valuable because they had to be hand-made.
3.) Remember something along the lines of six days you shall labour, but the seventh is set aside for God…

Protestantism would never have been possible without the printing press, mass literacy and education.

Quite a few will say things like no-one speaks Latin, so the Catholic Church was trying to hide the true faith in the Bible from the people. Balderdash! Latin was still commonly taught in schools and universities, right up until the 20th Century!

Well; so much for your “balderdash” No one today understands it; except for small minorities in the odd place.

 

[Protestant101]

That’s a reference to Jesus, not the Bible. The Bible never once calls itself the Word of God. The Bible says that “Scripture is inspired by God,” but that’s not the same thing, and for that matter, the Apostles are also inspired directly by Jesus. John 20:22.

The text I referenced is a direct reference to God’s Word, as well as to Jesus. As we read in Genesis; God spoke His Word, the scriptures were born. Jesus was present as our Creator; and in the beginning He gave us His Word.

Many scriptures actually do call themselves: “the word of the Lord” or “the word of God:”

1Sa 9:27 And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on,) but stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God.

 

[Protestant101]

The above ignores the question, what verifyies Scripture?

Well, Tradition verifies Scripture. That is, does Scripture conform to what we already believe? If not, then it is not Scripture. That is how the pre-existing Christians decided what of their writings were to be considered Scripture.

Indeed, the Word comes first. The Word, Jesus, founds the Church, then the Church founds Scripture. Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church, the Holy Spirit also guided the Church in its writing of Scripture. It is a Tradition of the Church that Scripture is inspired.

Its the other way around. Without scripture; their is no basis for “tradition.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

The text I referenced is a direct reference to God’s Word, as well as to Jesus. As we read in Genesis; God spoke His Word, the scriptures were born.

Sorry, we are not Muslims. Jesus gave a specific warning about this:

[BIBLEDRB]John 5:39-40[/BIBLEDRB]

Many scriptures actually do call themselves: “the word of the Lord” or “the word of God:”

Individual Scriptures are not the Bible.

Its the other way around. Without scripture; their is no basis for “tradition.”

This is only possible if you are willing to accept the existence of Palestinian time machines.

 

[jhookjoe]

What bothers me about bible quotes is no one ever lists which bible they quote from. Answer this: Which bible came 1st? The King James? No! The New American? No!
It was the Dewey Rheims that Jerome translated.
Ask this: How are all bibles different? If its the “word of God” then they should all be the same. God wouldn’t have a different message for Catholics and protestants, would he?
They are called Protestants because they protested against the Catholic Church on church teachings in disagreement with the Pope. They lacked obedience necessary for 1 worldwide church.
This was inevitable as free will and lack of proper catechesis breeds schisms.
You much choose to be obedient to God and his traditions handed down from Peter and correct them within his church when false teaching arises. If you don’t like the current President of your country, you don’t leave your country and start a new one, do you?
We will have heaven on earth when we ignore the insidious lies of Satan.
Remember: Chaos is defined as 30,000 denominations all claiming to be the 1 true church of God divinely inspired to lead the pilgrims of Christianity to heaven. Does this sound like something God wants? He is not about division, but unity of faith!
Come home to the Catholic, worldwide church of Jesus Christ, and then we can really change this world ending division and war, famine and pestilence.

 

[zarthan]

One example of Catholic tradition that has no basis in scripture is the teaching that the Virgin Mary did not give birth to Jesus Christ through her birth canal.

With due respect to devout traditionalists, those of us who place our trust in Divine Scripture should not be expected to believe something which takes away from the humanity of Jesus Christ and the motherhood of Mary, and is contrary to the revelation of Divine Scripture.

 

[Cat_Herder]

one example of catholic tradition that has no basis in scripture is the teaching that the virgin mary did not give birth to jesus christ through her birth canal.

[sign1]ERROR: no such teaching[/sign1]

 

[felsguy]

What bothers me about bible quotes is no one ever lists which bible they quote from. Answer this: Which bible came 1st? The King James? No! The New American? No!
It was the Dewey Rheims that Jerome translated.
Ask this: How are all bibles different? If its the “word of God” then they should all be the same. God wouldn’t have a different message for Catholics and protestants, would he?
They are called Protestants because they protested against the Catholic Church on church teachings in disagreement with the Pope. They lacked obedience necessary for 1 worldwide church.
This was inevitable as free will and lack of proper catechesis breeds schisms.
You much choose to be obedient to God and his traditions handed down from Peter and correct them within his church when false teaching arises. If you don’t like the current President of your country, you don’t leave your country and start a new one, do you?
We will have heaven on earth when we ignore the insidious lies of Satan.
Remember: Chaos is defined as 30,000 denominations all claiming to be the 1 true church of God divinely inspired to lead the pilgrims of Christianity to heaven. Does this sound like something God wants? He is not about division, but unity of faith!
Come home to the Catholic, worldwide church of Jesus Christ, and then we can really change this world ending division and war, famine and pestilence.

Joe, it appears you stated this backwards. The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582-1610) was a translation from Jerome’s 4th century work, the Vulgate.

 

[zarthan]

[sign1]ERROR: no such teaching[/sign1]

Cat Herder: As a recent convert to the Catholic faith, the Church welcomes you. I was baptized and confirmed Catholic many years ago, and I just discovered from the Catechism that this is a teaching of the Catholic church.

 

[rocketrob]

Cat Herder: As a recent convert to the Catholic faith, the Church welcomes you. I was baptized and confirmed Catholic many years ago, and I just discovered from the Catechism that this is a teaching of the Catholic church.

What the Catechism actually states is the following:

CCC 487
What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

CC 499
The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”

The physiological details about how this was supernaturally accomplished are not specifically detailed.

rocketrob

 

[mackbrislawn]

Its the other way around. Without scripture; their is no basis for “tradition.”

No, no. Tradition, which contained God’s word, existed for generations before it was written down. Scripture began with Moses, or those after him, and for for all that time preceding, there was only Tradition, the spoken Word, not written.

God’s people existed first, based upon Tradtition, then God’s people eventually wrote down what the prophets spoke. This applies to both the OT and the NT.

 

[zarthan]

What the Catechism actually states is the following:

The physiological details about how this was supernaturally accomplished are not specifically detailed.

rocketrob

Unfortunately, we are expected to believe in something that is not in accordance with Holy Scripture. For instance, Luke 2:23-24 “When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord’, and to offer the sacrifice of a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, in accordance with the dictate of the law of the Lord.” (Lev.12 and Exodus 13:1-2)

Clearly, Jesus Christ in being born, opened the womb of his virgin mother Mary. Clearly, Mary offered the prescribed sacrifice after the forty days of her prescribed purification were completed.

 

[rocketrob]

Unfortunately, we are expected to believe in something that is not in accordance with Holy Scripture. For instance, Luke 2:23-24 “When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord’, and to offer the sacrifice of a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, in accordance with the dictate of the law of the Lord.” (Lev.12 and Exodus 13:1-2)

Clearly, Jesus Christ in being born, opened the womb of his virgin mother Mary. Clearly, Mary offered the prescribed sacrifice after the forty days of her prescribed purification were completed.

There is no contradiction here. Mary submitted herself to the law of Moses just as Jesus was in the preceding verse:

“And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

As with the Church teachings regarding Mary, these Scripture passages are more about Jesus than about Mary. He was raised in accordance with the law of Moses so that he might fulfill it.

rocketrob