Why is sacred tradition infallible, where is the proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ilovejesus1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ilovejesus1234

Guest
How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?

Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true, how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible. How do I believe in offering things up if it is so unclear in the bible…ALL of it is unclear in the bible, all of the things from the bible relating to tradition Are unclear the bible verses that people say verifies tradition is about as clear as being blind…

It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…All my protestant friends at my college say they are right, but all Catholics say they are right, what do I believe??? I am in RCIA,19… and on the route to baptism, yet why am I catholic if I doubt and cannot believe most of the traditions…I feel like crying…

I want to be a saint, I must always keep suffering for God…But isn’t this too much…??? All I have left that is of God is the fact that I know he somewhat was crucified for me based off faith, history is muddy about it…And the fact that God is good but even then that sometimes gets taken away from me…
 
Many protestants belive in what is called Sola Scriptura. Sola Sciptura is the teaching that only what the Bible says counts. Catholicism takes a broader view and besides the bible other documents are also authoritative, these include elements of Cathecism and papal proclamations.

Jesus appointed Peter as his successor as leader of the church, and said to him that what he makes on earth will be made in Heaven. Jesus thus effectively confers on him the right and duty to continue his teachings and effectively make proclamations of faith. The Bible itself thus says that there are (or can be) sources outside of the Bible.

Catholics believe this right was passed down from Peter to the next Pope and so on through the ages to today’s Pope. This is what gives popes the right to speak Ex Cathedra and declare items of faith or dogma (of course only after conferring with the magesterium and prayer).

The protestant churches deny that this succession exists (I’m simplifying a bit here, as different churches have slightly different arguments). The free churches claim that anything that cannot be derived from interpreting the Bible does not count.

However, in the Reformation they actually modified the Bible and left out bits of it. So the claim that the Bible is a sole source falls on its face if they had to modify it first. Protestants say, ah yes, but the Catholics modified those bits further back in history. But seeing that for Centuries the Catholic Church was the sole guardian of Scripture, how do they trust that the Church did not modify other things too?

At some point in history the various conflicting accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings had to be consolidated and the people who did that used prayer and had the holy spirit to guide them. If you reject that, then ultimately the bible is meaningless. If you accept it, then you have to go with their decisions and not pick and chose and delete bits the way protestants do.
 
Ilovejesus1234 #1
How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?
Click to expand...
The first fact to know is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He founded the Catholic Church with St Peter as His first Pope, and with the other Apostles. A follower of Jesus, Quadratus, wrote in about 123 A.D. assures us that in his day there were people who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2.].

Infallibility of the Pope came from Jesus Himself as He placed St Peter as the Head of His Church:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The Pope consults with His Cardinals and Bishops before issuing a dogma or doctrine, but from Christ’s clear mandate above it is the Pope who has to issue or approve an Ecumenical Council teaching, or personally issue the dogma or doctrine.
how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible
Click to expand...
On purgatory: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.” [2 Macc 12:46].

The Catholic Church put together and authorized the truths in the Books of the Bible, but not all teaching is therein. However, re Mary’s sinlessness haven’t you seen “Hail full of grace the Lord is with thee.”? [Lk 1:28].
my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…
Click to expand...
Then recognise that you need personal help on the formation and teaching of the Catholic Church and need to pray, study and seek to really get to know Jesus of Nazareth and His Church. Ask good reliable Catholic family and friends to help you.

What do you think?
 
Cirdan_XII said:
Jesus appointed Peter as his successor as leader of the church, and said to him that what he makes on earth will be made in Heaven. Jesus thus effectively confers on him the right and duty to continue his teachings and effectively make proclamations of faith. The Bible itself thus says that there are (or can be) sources outside of the Bible.
Click to expand...
There is of course a very good argument that infalibillity rests in the whole Church and that the last ‘infallible’ statements were made in the first seven Councils of the whole Church.
 
This is not intended as a complete answer to all your questions, but just as one possible approach to push back against the “It’s not in the Bible” argument. The first question to ask your Protestant friends is this: Where did the Bible come from? The Bible is a collection of different books that were written by different people at different times. Who collected them together? Who decided which books were inspired by God and therefore ought to be accepted into the Canon, and which other books were not inspired and therefore were to be left out? You know the answer already, of course: the Old Testament was put together by the priests and scribes of the Temple, and the New Testament by the Christian Church. In both cases, these were long drawn-out processes that took several centuries to complete. The follow-up question is this: In both cases, where did these two different bodies of priests and scholars get the authority to make their decisions? Did they get their authority from God? If they didn’t, then the Bible itself has no authority. But if they did, then the authority they were given by God gave them the right to make decisions, not only on which books were to assembled into the Canon of Holy Scripture, but on other matters as well. And these other matters are broadly what is called sacred tradition.

I hope this helps. I’ve used it myself a number of times on other websites, but I’m sorry to say that, as far as I know, it has never resulted in a Protestant changing his mind!
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?

Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true, how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible. How do I believe in offering things up if it is so unclear in the bible…ALL of it is unclear in the bible, all of the things from the bible relating to tradition Are unclear the bible verses that people say verifies tradition is about as clear as being blind…

It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…All my protestant friends at my college say they are right, but all Catholics say they are right, what do I believe??? I am in RCIA,19… and on the route to baptism, yet why am I catholic if I doubt and cannot believe most of the traditions…I feel like crying…

I want to be a saint, I must always keep suffering for God…But isn’t this too much…??? All I have left that is of God is the fact that I know he somewhat was crucified for me based off faith, history is muddy about it…And the fact that God is good but even then that sometimes gets taken away from me…
Click to expand...
Just keep plugging away. The truths of Catholicism are no less true today than the day before you first started investigating it. (Actually than the day before Luther posted the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Door!).

Many of your friends are just regurgitating what they have been told, you are in the process of learning (however bumpy it might seem at this point) which will serve you better in the long run. Keep moving forward.👍

PAX
 
Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are truths revealed to us by God.

The Magisterium of the Church - the teaching office - is the infallible interpreter of revealed truth so that we might understand it without error.

-Tim-
 
I was reading a conversion story the other day. The part that really popped out at me was:
When I posed this question [why did I treat Scripture as the final authority?] to myself, I recognized that I had no good answer. The real reason I appealed to Scripture alone was that this is what I had been taught. As I studied the issue, I discovered that no Protestant has ever given a satisfactory answer to this question. The Reformers did not really defend the doctrine of “Scripture alone.” They merely asserted it. Even worse, I learned that modern Protestant theologians who have tried to defend “Scripture alone” do so by an appeal to tradition. This struck me as illogical. Eventually, I realized that “Scripture alone” is not even in Scripture. The doctrine is self-refuting. I also saw that the earliest Christians knew no more of “Scripture alone,” than they had known of “faith alone.” On the issues of how-we-are-saved and how-we-define-the-faith, the earliest Christian found their center in The Church. The Church was both the authority on Christian doctrine as well as the instrument of salvation.
Click to expand...
Another thing I was reading recently had this part that stuck with me:
St. Paul mentions tradition several times in his epistles, reminding both Timothy and the Thessalonians to stand fast to the traditions he taught them. In his Second Letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: “Take as a model of sound teaching what you have heard me say, in faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the rich deposit of faith with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (1:13-14). Later, in the same letter, he further instructs Timothy, “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:1-2). **It seems clear that the apostolic Tradition, the oral teaching of the apostles, was to be preserved and transmitted from generation to generation. **St. Paul doesn’t write to Timothy and say, “This is all you need for salvation”; rather, he writes Timothy to entrust to other faithful men, who will be able to instruct others, what he preached, and Timothy heard, before many witnesses.
Click to expand...
Jesus lived. Jesus died. Jesus rose again. Jesus did not leave behind boxes of Catechisms and Bibles and Canon Laws, just as God didn’t give Moses boxes of Catechisms and Bibles and Canon Laws on the mountaintop. Jesus left behind men, who were his Church, and the Church was his Body. And he gave those men his authority-- to preach, to teach, to administer sacraments. And just as the Hebrews’ understanding of God developed over time between, say, Moses and Malachi, the Christian understanding also had to develop. You’ll see an example of this in Acts of the Apostles, where they had to decide whether Gentile converts had to follow Jewish law in order to be a follower of Christ. I’m sure your friend believes in the Trinity… but this term doesn’t appear in the Bible. How else could he come up with something so non-intuitive if not for tradition?

Many things were defined through time because of heresies that arose. In order to argue, you need to be able to clarify what you believe. The same thing is true for you… you know what you believe; now you need to figure out how to express it. 🙂 Much ink has been spilled because many other people have had the same difficulties. And that’s okay, because sometimes, God lets us argue so that we can have the benefit of discussions helps us better grasp our faith. As Ven. Maria of Agreda said–
Doubt serves as a stimulus to the understanding for the investigation of truth. Therefore controversies of the teachers fulfill a proper and holy end.
Click to expand...
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?

Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true, how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible. How do I believe in offering things up if it is so unclear in the bible…ALL of it is unclear in the bible, all of the things from the bible relating to tradition Are unclear the bible verses that people say verifies tradition is about as clear as being blind…

It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…All my protestant friends at my college say they are right, but all Catholics say they are right, what do I believe??? I am in RCIA,19… and on the route to baptism, yet why am I catholic if I doubt and cannot believe most of the traditions…I feel like crying…

I want to be a saint, I must always keep suffering for God…But isn’t this too much…??? All I have left that is of God is the fact that I know he somewhat was crucified for me based off faith, history is muddy about it…And the fact that God is good but even then that sometimes gets taken away from me…
Click to expand...
IloveJesus, I ask you: Do you believe Jesus words? Because I believe this is true:
“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)

will guide you into all truth. This is the apostolic infallibility. If you believe that Jesus has divine authority you has to believe His words are true and therefore is the truth that He has transmitted this infallibility to His Apostolic Church. Not only to write and canonize the Scriptures. Note that the text doesn’t say the Spirit will communicate you the truth for you write it in form of Scriptures, the text says the Spirit will guide you into all truth. This include all (apostolic preaching, apostolic writtings, apostolic sucession, apostolic teaching, apostolic decissions). That’s the Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium of the Church.
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?

Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true, how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible. How do I believe in offering things up if it is so unclear in the bible…ALL of it is unclear in the bible, all of the things from the bible relating to tradition Are unclear the bible verses that people say verifies tradition is about as clear as being blind…

It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…All my protestant friends at my college say they are right, but all Catholics say they are right, what do I believe??? I am in RCIA,19… and on the route to baptism, yet why am I catholic if I doubt and cannot believe most of the traditions…I feel like crying…

I want to be a saint, I must always keep suffering for God…But isn’t this too much…??? All I have left that is of God is the fact that I know he somewhat was crucified for me based off faith, history is muddy about it…And the fact that God is good but even then that sometimes gets taken away from me…
Click to expand...
Not to add further complication in your life, however, your protestant friends are in the same large dilemma if they reject the church. How do they know the Bible is infallible, that it has all the necessary books, that the translation is accurate, etc, etc, etc. Sure one can challenge the church all they want, however, they don’t have a leg to stand on by then quoting the Bible, since their Bible is a product of the Catholic Church. They have even less of a leg to stand on if they rely on themselves and their self-perception of being given some gift from the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible.
 
I can’t prove that God exist, yet I believe. I can not prove that faith exist, yet I have faith. I can’t see or “touch” God, yet I know that there is a God through faith. Try not to over-complicate or intellectualize what you know in your heart. Call it the ‘art of knowing,’ if you wish. Everything will fall into place in it’s proper time and place.
I learned a long time ago not to discuss religion or politics with “friends.” I pray for you peace of heart.
 
I want to clarify something… as I was taught that for something to be at the level of Dogma, scripture AND tradition need to both agree. (And NO silence on he matter doesn’t count). Everything else can be held as a matter of private faith, but not required. This was what I was taught as a Lutheran.
 
Eamonnroma #6
There is of course a very good argument that infalibillity rests in the whole Church and that the last ‘infallible’ statements were made in the first seven Councils of the whole Church.
Click to expand...
It is no argument worthy of anyone for it has no sound basis. The Orthodox Churches do not contain all the elements of the true faith – they explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Fr Brian Harrison:
"…many Orthodox theologians and bishops have now severely qualified or even surrendered any serious claim to infallibility on the part of their Church. Also, there is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue.

“…in recent decades, with more extensive cultural and ecumenical contacts, and with an increasingly large and active Eastern diaspora in Western countries, Orthodoxy’s underlying vulnerability to the same liberal and secularizing tendencies in faith, morals and worship that have devastated the West is becoming more apparent. That virus – an inevitable result of breaking communion with the visible ‘Rock’ of truth and unity constituted by the See of Peter – is now inexorably prodding Orthodoxy toward doctrinal pluralism and disintegration.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html
Hockeygurl #13
I want to clarify something… as I was taught that for something to be at the level of Dogma, scripture AND tradition need to both agree. (And NO silence on he matter doesn’t count). Everything else can be held as a matter of private faith, but not required. This was what I was taught as a Lutheran.
Click to expand...
As post #3 shows, only the Catholic Church has the authority from Christ to define dogma and doctrine.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN to me on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
Why is sacred tradition infallible, where is the proof?
Click to expand...
The most prominent component of Sacred Tradition is the New Testament, it is infallible. I will leave the exercise of trying to prove that the New Testament is not infallible to you.
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true, how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible.
Click to expand...
Can I explain this for you historically (summarising it massively, oversimplifying it terribly, and with the overriding recognition that I am - apparently - a dreadful, heretical, completely-untrustworthy Protestant)?

Tradition was the Early Church’s criterion for formulating theological doctrine. Tradition was there before the Bible was, and it determined what went into the Bible.

Much, much, much later, some Protestants came along and said, “There are all of these problems in the church because you have let your own human traditions pervert Sacred Tradition. We’re going back to the Bible alone.” Unfortunately, this idea did not work out nearly as neatly as expected, with most Protestant churches actually having their own traditions: church on Sunday, candles in churches, and, of course, the Bible itself (some Protestant churches do acknowledge their connection to traditions and Tradition). Nevertheless, the rallying cry was still often “Bible good! Tradition bad!” That is the message which you seem to have been hearing.

In contrast, the Catholic view of Tradition is that it is very precisely what guarantees that Catholic doctrine is right, because it connects what Catholics believe now to what Catholics have believed before. On the basis that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, the continuity of belief is understood to be a demonstration of correct belief. Now, rather than thinking about this as an abstract theory, consider this: if Paul believed it and Irenaeus of Lyons believed it and Augustine of Hippo believed it and Doctor Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed it and Anselm of Canterbury believed it and Thomas Aquinas believed it and Thomas a Kempis believed it, well, you really ought to ask whether anyone else has a really good reason for claiming that all of those very bright people were wrong! Catholic Tradition is not just a matter of saying, “We do it this way because we’ve always done it this way”: it’s an acknowledgement of two thousand years of careful scholarship.
It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair
Click to expand...
With respect, I feel that you are getting too upset about this.

If the answers were simple, there would not be very bright people on all sides of the discussion. Be patient with yourself, and recognise that understanding precisely how this works is going to take longer than a mortal life. Pray about it, and recognise that God can help you through your trial.

May God bless you and guide you.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
Just keep plugging away. The truths of Catholicism are no less true today than the day before you first started investigating it. (Actually than the day before Luther posted the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Door!).

Many of your friends are just regurgitating what they have been told, you are in the process of learning (however bumpy it might seem at this point) which will serve you better in the long run. Keep moving forward.👍

PAX
Click to expand...
👍
 
As many have already pointed out, Scripture is just a part of Tradition. It makes no sense to separate Scripture from the rest of Tradition: that’s sort of like separating the New Testement itself, choosing to believe the Gospel of Mark but not the Gospel of John, and so forth. The picking and choosing is arbitrary: they have no reason to choose this doctrine over that doctrine, other than their own ego.

A great way, I think, to describe the relationship between the Magisterium, Tradition, and Scripture is from the Nicene Creed: Scripture proceeds from the Bishops and Tradition. Tradition is handed on (“tradition” comes from the Latin word for “hand over”) from Bishop to Bishop, and Scripture is declared by the Bishops examining that Tradition. In the early Church, there was three classes of “Jesus” literature: the writings of the Apostles, the writings of the orthodox, and the writings of the heretics. What the bishops did over about a century was distinguish between the first two categories, as they were not yet clear. The texts of the first two categories were passed on through Tradition, which included all the New Testament books, but also the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, the Shepard of Hermes, the Didache, etc., documents that are all orthodox, and which might have been considered Scripture in different parts of the empire even. All these texts were considered for Scripture, and ultimately only the New Testament books were chosen, although the Letter, the Shepard of Hermes, and the Didache are all still read and considered orthodox. I highly, highly recommend reading them!

Now, I mention the third category because it is important to the Dan Brown readers :whacky: There were certain texts, like the “Gospel” of Thomas or the “Gospel” of Mary that existed some time after the Apostles. Many today, because they don’t have the Magisterium or Tradition, think that these books could also have been part of the New Testement, but were thrown out because they somehow “threatened the powerful clergymen” or something 🤷 Now, putting the Marxist Conspiracy Theory aside, those text were not ever considered for the New Testement because they were never apart of Tradition. The Letter of Clement was passed down by as orthodox since its creation, while the “Gospel” of Thomas was produced outside the Tradition of the Church, and never considered a part of it. In fact, St. Irenaeus (~170) condemns it! To be blunt, the Chirch never concerned herself with those texts because they were not Tradition. The Bishops argued about 2 Peter and the Letters of Ignatius; about the Letter of Jude and the Letter to the Hebrews, but never about the “Gospel” of Thomas: they didn’t need to, as it fell outside Tradition to begin with, unlike the others I mentioned.

Sacred Tradition is also what Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Coptic Christianity, etc. (notice how all those groups can be traced to the first three centuries of the Church :rolleyes: ) have in common with Rabbinical Judaism, which makes sense, as the Church is post-Messiah Judaism. The Rabbinical Jews of today, who are descendents of the Pharisee school, believe in a “written Torah” which is the Old Testament, and an “oral Torah,” which, just like the Old Testament is passed down from Moses to the present, is also passed down to today. The Jews, during the exile from Israel though, wrote down most of the Oral Torah, which is called the Talmud (specifically it’s the Mishnah, which is part of the Talmud). Just as Rabbinical Jews distinguish but do not separate the Written Torah from the Oral Torah, for they are one Torah, the Church, which stems also from second Temple Judaism, distinguishes between the Written Gospel and the Oral Gospel, but does not separate them, for they are one Gospel: the Gospel of Christ.

To be continued…
 
My last argument would be the argument from objectivity: if God gave a revelation, He would have it objective, He would make the message clear, as the Holy Spirit is the foundation of integration, not the cause of confusion. But, under Sola Scriptura, different sects arise, each with a different interpretation, all claiming to be “guided by the Spirit.” The problem is obvious, if we are looking for Truth: how do we judge which group is correct? They all can’t be, because they contradict each other, and the Holy Spirit is not divided, and does not deceive. Can’t we use the Bible to judge who’s correct? Setting aside the obvious issue, mentioned much in this thread already, concerning how the Bible itself was determined, the Bible can be used to justify many sides of a debate! Even if we give the Protestants the benefit and say that each of their interpretations is a valid view (one I am not willing to grant, but will for the sake of argument: I think Jesus and St. Paul viciously and throughly destroy any ideas of “imputed grace”), that still means the Bible itself can’t judge which view is correct, for both views can come from it! Considering what I said above, known through reason and faith, that God, if He gave a revelation, would make it objective and knowable, not lost in interdenominational confusion, like Protestants have fallen to. So, there must be a higher judge to know who has the correct interpretation, which leads us to Tradition.

Tradition is then the Gospel, completely and Truthfully, written and unwritten, passed on by the Bishops, the “over-seers.” Tradition is not just oral though, it is also stories, prayers, devotions, Liturgy/Mass, among other things, but it most importantly is the Sacraments. Tradition/the Gospel is not just some words, or even some doctrines: it is the true way of living life; it is the true way of thinking about everything; it is the path of the Saint: Tradition is living life in the Church, loving as a member of the Body of Christ. Tradition is the Holy Spirit passed on generation to generation through mostly the Sacraments, as the Grace of the Sacraments just are the infusion of the Holy Spirit into our being (“we are Temples of the Holy Spirit,” “one must reborn of water and the Spirit,” “we are one Spirit in Christ” etc.).

Tradition can’t be separated from the College of Bishops, as they are medium in which it moves through time, and Tradition is still somewhat hazy in the details, and itself needs an interpter, like Scripture: Origen was (still is) one of the greatest Church Fathers ever, even though much of his theology was condemned at a council. We give other Fathers, like the Cappadocians, the benefit, even though they were influenced by Origen, as they did not know better (the doctrines were not yet condemned), and Origen is really, really appealing. But that gets to where I wanted to go with this: the Church Fathers are witnesses to Tradition, even if they sometimes went astray. The Church Father, because they trace back in a line to the Apostles themselves, prove that a doctrine they teach existed all the way back to the Apostles, even if the Apostolic doctrine might be mixed with false doctrine too. Since Tradition alone is indeterminate sometimes, a higher authority than Tradition is need to “judge” it: to look at the doctrine in question and discover whether it is an Apostolic one, rather than a bad one that got mixed in.

The Judging function is exercised by the College of Bishops, Bishops who together are all Apostles (the better term is Apostolic sucesssors), and together can infallibility judge, as “when three or more are gathered in My Name, I dwell among them.” This infallibility is exercised in what is called an Ecumenical Council (the term is extra-ordinary magisterium). They possess this infallibility due to the Holy Spirit, which works with their office of Bishop, not because of their persons (the office of Bishop is not dependent on the person who currently fulfills the office). The College’s head Bishop is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. He is the head of the College, as he is the successor of St. Peter, who was head of the Church (“I give you the Keys of Heaven,” “you are the rock” (Peter means rock in Greek), etc.). If the Bishops themselves become conflicted, the Pope is a sort of tie breaker. But if he is an extra-extra ordinary tie breaker, that must mean that the office of Peter is also infallible specifically.

To be continued…
 
By the way, historically speaking, the early Church overwhelmingly believed in Apostolic Sucession. Back then, Bishop=Truth, and that is still the view today, as you can see from above. St. Irenaeus, a student of St. Polycarp, who himself was a student of St. John the Apostle (that’s literally one generation: do you really think St. Irenaeus got it as wrong as the Protestants and the skeptics suppose: especially in a culture that emphasized oral tradition!), is the first Father to go into specific detail regarding Apostolic Succession. Here is a Catholic answer tract regarding Succession: catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

If you want to read an account of the Mass in early times, read St. Justin the Martyr’s (AD 100-150) writings, all which can be found on New Advent under “Fathers.” Read Ignatius of Antioch, Pope Clement, and St. Polycarp too! Ignatius, a disciple of St. Polycarp as well, bluntly condemns those who deny the real presence of the Eucharist, and claims “where the Bishop be, let the people be also, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is also the Catholic Church.” The Didache is the first catechism, and also speaks of the Bishops (note: remember that back then, and currently in parts of the Eastern Churches, Bishops were elected by vote in a congregation, and then ordained. This fact can slip up people): newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

I pray to the Holy Spirit that I have successfully explained a rough sketch of the Catholic view, and why it is valid and True, unlike the false Protestant model.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top