Which Traditions?

[ErricFiggy]

2 Thessalonians 2:15

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

Do we know what Traditions St Paul was talking about here?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Do we know what Traditions St Paul was talking about here?

It seems you have a pretty good idea yourself - you capitalized the word “Traditions” in both the subject and the body of your question (even though the word was lowercase in the Biblical quote you cited).

You thus seem to be aware of the difference between “tradition” (rules and customs) and “Tradition” (Catholic doctrine which has been maintained from the foundation of the Church, but which may not have been (yet) formally promulgated in written form).

It is impossible to enumerate what is contained in the body of Tradition - because this body (by definition) has never been otherwise defined. The Church has inherited the whole of Tradition, but She only formally defines parts of it as She deems necessary. At one point, She deemed it necessary to define Papal infallibility, but She has not (yet) deemed it necessary to specifically proscribe the notion that Jesus was conceived because a Roman soldier raped Mary. It is fairly obvious that Tradition excludes such an idea, but (to my knowledge) this exclusion has not been specifically taught in written Doctrine.

 

[ErricFiggy]

It seems you have a pretty good idea yourself - you capitalized the word “Traditions” in both the subject and the body of your question (even though the word was lowercase in the Biblical quote you cited).

You thus seem to be aware of the difference between “tradition” (rules and customs) and “Tradition” (Catholic doctrine which has been maintained from the foundation of the Church, but which may not have been (yet) formally promulgated in written form).

It is impossible to enumerate what is contained in the body of Tradition - because this body (by definition) has never been otherwise defined. The Church has inherited the whole of Tradition, but She only formally defines parts of it as She deems necessary. At one point, She deemed it necessary to define Papal infallibility, but She has not (yet) deemed it necessary to specifically proscribe the notion that Jesus was conceived because a Roman soldier raped Mary. It is fairly obvious that Tradition excludes such an idea, but (to my knowledge) this exclusion has not been specifically taught in written Doctrine.

Ah I see. So please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Traditions Paul was speaking of could have been anything from Papal infallibility to the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Ah I see. So please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Traditions Paul was speaking of could have been anything from Papal infallibility to the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

Well, for those two particular examples, I would say not.

Catholic Doctrine is based on three complementary but distinct sources. These are Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Those two particular teachings can be explicitly found in Scripture (Matt. 16:18 and John 6). The interpretation of the plain-sense of these texts are ALSO echoed in Sacred Tradition (including the nearly-unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers) as well as countless Magesterial documents (Papal encyclicals, Ecumenical Council resolutions, etc), but these particular teachings are first and foremost clearly established in the plain text of the Gospels, and may thus be regarded as principally Scriptural Doctrine.

(Eastern Catholics would completely agree with the “Body and Blood” aspect of my comments, but may have objections to the “Papal infallibility” aspects - but that’s sorta off-topic for your question.)