Why are sacred traditions and papal decrees on the same authority as gospel?

[Startingcatholic]

In Judaism nothing is held ultimately above the torah so why do we keep papal decrees as well as sacred tradition on the same level as the gospel?

 

[edward_george1]

We don’t.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Maximilian75]

In short, because we’re Catholic and not Jewish and resultantly have different traditions.

Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and, subsequently, the ability to guide the Church, which is expressed in some part through Papal Infallibility.

 

[edward_george1]

The long answer is that “The Gospel” isn’t just the written word. The teaching of the Apostles as handed on by them to their successors, which constitutes the Sacred Tradition, is held to be authoritative. “Papal Decrees” is a broad category which includes a lot of things that aren’t what you’re saying. None of them introduce new teaching, but clarify and highlight what’s already been handed on in Scripture and the Tradition.

 

[adf417]

Remember, it was the church that gave us these gospels you speak of.

Peace!!!

 

[Startingcatholic]

thank you! I also would like to ask you when it came to the beginning of the church when the apostles such as peter and paul disagreed on things like with gentiles would that be going against the popes authority?

 

[StephieNorthCo]

You might want to read Acts 15. Notice that when there was disagreement like you describe, they called a council of apostles and church leaders. Consider that an Ecumenical council, perhaps. Probably the first.

After arguments were presented, Peter got up and said WE believe… thus acting in his official capacity as pope. That is papal authority. Notice that the administrative execution of Peter’s authority was carried out by (the probable Bishop at Jerusalem) James, who followed up with the I recommendations.

(Thank you IIRC Jimmy Akins, who gave that explanation once on Catholic Answers Live).

 

[Vico]

thank you! I also would like to ask you when it came to the beginning of the church when the apostles such as peter and paul disagreed on things like with gentiles would that be going against the popes authority?

Peter defended Paul on the issue of circumcision being unnecessary. Acts 15.

 

[guanophore]

None of them introduce new teaching, but clarify and highlight what’s already been handed on in Scripture and the Tradition.

And I will add to that, we hold Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to be equal and complimentary strands of Divine Revelation because we have kept the Apostolic Command:

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Both of these Sources come from Jesus.

 

[Wesrock]

thank you! I also would like to ask you when it came to the beginning of the church when the apostles such as peter and paul disagreed on things like with gentiles would that be going against the popes authority?

The dispute described in Galatians wasn’t doctrinal. Peter himself was the one who proclaimed (after revelation from God) all food clean (following Christ in the gospel, though it doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the apostles until after the Resurrection). If I take anything from it, it’s that Peter’s approach to ministering to the Jews by not scandalizing them ended up giving scandal to the gentiles instead, even though Peter did not teach anything different about what foods were unclean. Peter was rebuked by Paul for this, but again, that’s not a doctrinal matter. Still, Paul’s later letters suggest some development on Paul’s end, too. In Roman’s Paul states that all foods are clean, but he stressed that the communities should avoid scandalizing each other, that if eating certain foods scandalized your brother and cause him to stumble, avoid them (given the context of his day). He also had Timothy circumcised before bringing him to the Temple, and we know that Paul did not believe circumcision was necessary for grace. So Peter’s overall ideas may have influence Paul, anyway, or Paul may have come to better understand.

 

[commenter]

In Judaism nothing is held ultimately above the torah so why do we keep papal decrees as well as sacred tradition on the same level as the gospel?

A better question is why do we today consider The Gospel of Mathew more authoritative than, say, the gospel of Mary, unlike some early Christians who held that and others to be inspired. But not Mathew.

Since then the “gospel” was originally only oral, who is to say ANY written version is authoritative?

Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are all inter related. If no magisterium, then no identified scriptures or Tradition.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I’m not sure that your characterization of Judaism is correct. The Wikipedia article on Judaism says, “Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. … [Rabbinic Judaism] is characterised by the belief that the Written Torah (Written Law) cannot be correctly interpreted without reference to the Oral Torah…” This is very similar to the Catholic belief in Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Oral) Tradition and their complimentary relationship to one another.