Ask Me Help Desk - Scripture & Tradition

Early Christians regarded Tradition as coming from God no less than did Scripture itself. And yet, in the long march of time from those early centuries, many have come to regard Tradition as a foe, as something opposed to Scripture. There is a reasoned case to be made for both views. My question is, which view is correct, and why? The question has two parts, and I am interested to hear answers to either or both.
1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

Please: Kindly support any response you care to share with reasoned support. In other words, please do not simply post dizzying lists of Scriptural passages. For any Scripture you do offer, please provide some explanation of what you take it to be saying and why you take it to say that.

Thank you in advance.

Some traditions are good and some are not
You have to look at the context and the history
Where did it come from
Does it line up with scripture
Is it man's tradition because they believe it will please God

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Early Christians regarded Tradition as coming from God no less than did Scripture itself. And yet, in the long march of time from those early centuries, many have come to regard Tradition as a foe, as something opposed to Scripture. There is a reasoned case to be made for both views. My question is, which view is correct, and why? The question has two parts, and I am interested to hear answers to either or both.
1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

Please: Kindly support any response you care to share with reasoned support. In other words, please do not simply post dizzying lists of Scriptural passages. For any Scripture you do offer, please provide some explanation of what you take it to be saying and why you take it to say that.

Thank you in advance.

Can you define what you mean by "Tradition" for me. Is this my tradition of Christmas turkey? Or, is it something different?

JoeT

Perhaps I could have been clearer. We use the word "tradition" in lots of different ways, of course. We have family traditions, cultural traditions, I have my own personal "traditions". We I ask about tradition--hereafter Tradition--I mean to ask about a source of revelation. (Presumably my family's traditions aren't a source of revelation for anybody, not even for me.)

I mean Tradition as a body of teaching handed down from one generation to the next. Early Christians called it the "deposit of faith": A body of teaching--to repeat what I just said--that contains truths in matter of faith.

Does this help at all?

(I'm trying to give a sort of neutral presentation of the idea of Tradition.)

Like NO said, first look at a tradition's context and history --

In a Zen temple, every evening during meditation the temple's cat would screech at the top of its voice, preventing the monks from concentrating. Eventually the Master had to order the cat to be tied and gagged during meditation sessions, and in this way the problem was solved.

Years passed and both the master and the cat died, and a new master was appointed. Then a new cat was found and every evening before the meditation, it was tied and gagged.

Several years later, scholars at the temple wrote treatises about the significance in Buddhist practice of tying up cats.

I heard a story about tradition. The woman always cut her meat in half and baked each half in the oven on different racks.
Her husband one time asked why she did it that way. She said I don't know I will have to ask my mother why she did it that way.
She asked her mom. Her mom replied because the oven was too narrow to put a big roasting pan in it so she had to use two smaller ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I heard a story about tradition. The woman always cut her meat in half and baked each half in the oven on different racks.
Her husband one time asked why she did it that way. She said I dunno I will have to ask my mother why she did it that way.
She asked her mom. Her mom replied because the oven was too narrow to put a big roasting pan in it so she had to use two smaller ones.

I've aways folded towels and washcloths exactly as my mother taught me many years ago. I once asked her why those kinds of folds. She replied, "Because then they will fit in the drawer."

Too often that's what happens with church tradition--"we've always done it that way," but no one knows why and there's no mom to ask why.

Wondergirl, N0help4u,

Thanks. Okay, so I think this helps. So what I want to get at is a notion of Tradition as something the goes beyond the examples you've offered. (Though I would like to here more about the Zen one sometime.--No offense, N0help4u, too soon after Thanksgiving for me to even think about turkey yet).

So, back to my original question: What are your views about Tradition in *that* sense?

I think what you are asking about is what the early Church Fathers wrote and taught that was not included in the bible and is referred to as Christian early tradition.
We get that tradition information from still existing documentation.
That does not include later activities such as the CHRISTmas Tree or turkey for CHRISTmas dinner.
Am I right?
Fred

Please name some specific early church traditions that are still kept and help Christians in some way (and how).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Too often that's what happens with church tradition--"we've always done it that way," but no one knows why and there's no mom to ask why.

But, what if the Tradition deals with Scripture? It’s been determined that this particular scripture is intended to be understood a certain way. Do we abandon that meaning just because you don’t know how to fold towels?

JoeT

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

But, what if the Tradition deals with Scripture? It’s been determined that this particular scripture is intended to be understood a certain way. Do we abandon that meaning just because you don’t know how to fold towels?

JoeT

You missed my point. Please read my subsequent posts.

Fred,

Thanks for helping us get back on track. Yes, I'm asking about something much older than turkey dinners.

Now, on one way of looking at it, the Bible is part of Tradition because it too is something that has been handed down as part of a deposit of faith. On this view, Scripture and Tradition aren't in tension with one another because Scripture is part of Tradition.

Another view holds that although the Bible has been handed down from generation to generation--in the sense that someone had to hand you and me the physical book--there is nothing beyond Scripture that can't be regarded as revelation.

(There are more than just these two views, of course, and I am eager to hear from those who hold a view other than those I have just described.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Please name some specific early church traditions that are still kept and help Christians in some way (and how).

Wow, that's hard. There are so many. I'll get back in a few minutes with a couple of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

But, what if the Tradition deals with Scripture? It’s been determined that this particular scripture is intended to be understood a certain way. Do we abandon that meaning just because you don’t know how to fold towels?

JoeT

No the point is the scripture tells you how to and about 'folding the towels' so that is her point if it is a tradition that deals with scripture it IS for a purpose.

To help clear this up here is some early Christian tradition that was posted earlier on a different thread.
<+><+><+>

Originally Posted by De Maria

Believe in Sola Scriptura? No.

Papias

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord's disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).

Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).

Origen

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).

Believe in the Pope? Yes.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret.. . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19].. . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church".. . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Believe in Faith alone? No.

Clement of Rome

Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words.. . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4 [A.D. 110]).

Theophilus of Antioch

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings, and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither has eye seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries and fornications and homosexuality and avarice and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, and in the end such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycas 1:14 [ca. A.D. 181]).

Clement of Alexandria

When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

Origen

Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

Cyprian

You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).

Believe in prayer to Saints? Yes.

Origen

But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels... as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (On Prayer II [A.D. 233]).

Pectorius

Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ] (Epitaph [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian

Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 252]).

Anonymous

Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins (funerary inscription near St. Sabina's in Rome [A.D. 300]).

Anonymous

Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,

Tradition isn't in the first instance composed of practices. At least, not in the sense of Tradition I'm asking about. (This is good, you're helping me to be more precise.) It's rather a body of teachings. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the words "God is a Trinity", for example, and yet many Christians believe that God is a Trinity. Here we have a doctrine, a teaching which is regarded by many to be part of revelation, and yet is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This isn't to say that it is *opposed* in any way to Scripture; just that it's not to be found there in as many words.

I think this also speaks to Joe's point. For many Christians, Tradition is something which guides their understanding of Scripture. So, for instance, those Christians who believe that God is a Trinity certainly don't take themselves to believe something which is in tension with Scripture; the Tradition, the teaching shows them how to interpret various Scriptural passages in order to see that God is in fact a Trinity.

I hope this helps. Tell me if it doesn't and I'll try again.

Like the tied-up and gagged cat in my story earlier, too often the meaning behind any Tradition (note the capital T, i.e. based on Scripture) has gotten lost in history and is merely a tradition (note the lower-case t). That is, the tradition was established but was never deserving of the capital T (high regard) it was gained over the years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Wondergirl,

Tradition isn't in the first instance composed of practices. At least, not in the sense of Tradition I'm asking about. (This is good, you're helping me to be more precise.) It's rather a body of teachings. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the words "God is a Trinity", for example, and yet many Christians believe that God is a Trinity. Here we have a doctrine, a teaching which is regarded by many to be part of revelation, and yet is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This isn't to say that it is *opposed* in any way to Scripture; just that it's not to be found there in as many words.

I think this also speaks to Joe's point. For many Christians, Tradition is something which guides their understanding of Scripture. So, for instance, those Christians who believe that God is a Trinity certainly don't take themselves to believe something which is in tension with Scripture; the Tradition, the teaching shows them how to interpret various Scriptural passages in order to see that God is in fact a Trinity.

I hope this helps. Tell me if it doesn't and I'll try again.

So you are calling Tradition the teachings the Church fathers have come up with after studying the Scriptures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So you are calling Tradition the teachings the Church fathers have come up with after studying the Scriptures.

Not exactly. For those who take this view--and, as I say, I hope we'll hear from and discuss many others--Tradition isn't something necessarily *derived from* Scripture. (Though, they would say, it must not conflict with Scripture.) Tradition, they hold, has been around since before Scripture. The books of the New Testament were written beginning in the middle of the first century. This is when Paul wrote the first of his epistles. The Gospels were written a little bit later. Tradition, on the other hand, has been around since Jesus himself walked and talked and taught his Apostles. They later wrote down what he taught them. But they also taught students of their own, and those students in turn had students, and so on. The NT is relatively short, and not all that Jesus taught is included in its pages. This, at least, is the view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Early Christians regarded Tradition as coming from God no less than did Scripture itself. And yet, in the long march of time from those early centuries, many have come to regard Tradition as a foe, as something opposed to Scripture. There is a reasoned case to be made for both views. My question is, which view is correct, and why? The question has two parts, and I am interested to hear answers to either or both.
1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?

Not according to Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Quote:

2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

Scripture is the record of the Word of God.
Tradition is the living response to the Word of God.

Tradition is the Church's obedient response to God's Word. It is in Tradition that we do what God commanded and was recorded in Scripture.

Jesus said, "Teach them everything I have commanded" therefore we have the Tradition of the Teaching Church, the Magisterium.

Jesus said, "Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", therefore we have the Tradition of Baptism.

Jesus said, "Do this in memory of Me." Therefore we have the Mass.

Therefore, since Tradition is the Church's response to God's word, we can go back in history and see how the early Church actually responded to the teachings of the Apostles which are recorded in Scripture.

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in the Papacy?

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret.. . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Did the Early Church Father believe in Purgatory?

Clement of Alexandria

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Tradition?

Papias

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).

Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).

Quote:

Please: Kindly support any response you care to share with reasoned support. In other words, please do not simply post dizzying lists of Scriptural passages. For any Scripture you do offer, please provide some explanation of what you take it to be saying and why you take it to say that.

If I might add, a frequently used metaphor against Tradition is the one of whispering a message around the campfire. Of course, the message eventually becomes distorted.

However, the Catholic doctrine is not Whispering Alone. Therefore, the metaphor doesn't fit. To make the metaphor fit, you would pass a note around along with the whispered message. If the person could not understand the whispered message, he could check the note. For instance, lets say the message was "jump up and down."

The person receiving the message could hear and see the note and then respond to it. When he passed the message, the next person would hardly have to read or hear the message as he could see it in the living response of the messenger.

That is the power of the Catholic doctrine of Scripture and Tradition.

I hope that helps.

Quote:

Thank you in advance.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Please name some specific early church traditions that are still kept and help Christians in some way (and how).

The Mass - We worship God with one mind and one voice.
The Eucharist - We unite ourselves to God in the most intimate communion possible.
The Magisterium - We evangelize the Word of God throughout the world.
Baptism - New Birth in the Body of Christ.
Confession - Repentance from sin.
Confirmation - Empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
Holy Matrimony - Devotion to one spouse, the image of Christ's love for the Church.
Holy Orders - Devotion to the Church, living out Christ's love for the Church.
Extreme Unction - Healing of Body and healing of soul. Preparation for the next life.
Bible study - Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I've aways folded towels and washcloths exactly as my mother taught me many years ago. I once asked her why those kinds of folds. She replied, "Because then they will fit in the drawer."

Too often that's what happens with church tradition--"we've always done it that way," but no one knows why and there's no mom to ask why.

We consider the Church our Mother. And so far, every time I've asked why of the Church, I've had an answer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Therefore, since Tradition is the Church's response to God's word, we can go back in history and see how the early Church actually responded to the teachings of the Apostles which are recorded in Scripture.

I think it's fair to say that, yes, that helps. I'm confidant that we'll have ample opportunity to take your examples into consideration in detail, but first I have a question (a question I'm sure many who read your post will also have): There were all sorts of traditions in the early Church. We find early Christians teaching and doing all sorts of different things. In virtue of what does any one of these count as a part of Tradition?

Wondergirl,

I think you bring up a good question for anyone who appeals to Tradition: Why do we do that? Why do we believe that?

And, sadly, too often the answer we get in return is the one you describe: We've always done it that way. To an honest question, honestly proffered, this is an unsatisfying response.

And this gets to the issue of the transmission of Tradition: It can't be just a laundry list that gets passed down. Part of what gets passed down has to be a deep understanding of all that is contained within Tradition. Otherwise it isn't really worth much. (I've met too many priests and ministers who've appealed lazily to "it's a mystery" or "it's how we've always done it".)

Wondergirl,
That is not quite the case.
The fact is that the early Church Fathers were not just taught by what Scripture was available but also what they learned from the original apostles and disciples of Jesus.
Scripture itself tells us that much of what Jesus taught and did is not in the bible.
It is from the early Church Fathers' documents what we learn some of that.
Unfortunately much of that which was documented has been long lost.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

Unfortunately much of that which was documented has been long lost.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hi Fred,

What you say is important. We have in this century discovered an awful lot of early material that had been lost to history. The Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even our earliest manuscripts of the Bible don't agree with one another: The earliest, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, date from centuries after the books of the NT were actually written. For us, today, there is no NT text that predates the third century.

De Maria,
Very good list.
Our seven sacraments (sacred = something set aside for a special purpose) are a big part of Holy Tradition.
All have a Holy Scriptural base as well as from the Holy Traditional writings of the early Church Fathers.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

My church body has only two sacraments (so named). Some Christian churches have none named, but do the work implicit in the sacrament (confession, confirmation, marriage). Does that matter, their not being called sacraments per se? Does that change their definition and efficacy?

Wondergirl,
In the Catholic Church and others the sacraments are holy from a special point of view and action. They produce or bring grace from God.
In some cases they bring with them forgiveness of sins such as with baptism. Confession, last rights, and the Eucharist.
They are each in their own way miraculous.
Imagine what it is like to have Jesus Christ taken personally within you.
It affects me with Joy, Wonder, a Cleansing, a special Peace, and a great thankfulness.
The body and blood of Jesus does that for a great many people.
It is sad that there are so many Christians who can not experience that.
Communion in many churches is just a symbol of the real thing for only a priest can consecrate the host to have the Holy Spirit make the change from bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,

To address your question in light of the OP (I hope this will be useful to you):

My guess is that the two sacraments are baptism and marriage. As Fred and De Maria have pointed out, Catholics believe in five others. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox mostly agree on this, though they have slightly different views regarding confirmation.

Now you raise the question of efficacy. I mention Catholic and Orthodox views only as a way to relate this to the OP (I don't mean to suggest that they are the only contenders, since, of course, they are not). Part of what it means to say that the sacraments are part of Tradition is to indicate that they are passed down. But from whom to whom? And how? Well, on this view, the authority to perform sacraments was given by Christ to the Apostles. This authority was in turn transmitted, or passed down (you see the connection) from the Apostles to their disciples and so on down to our own time by the laying on of hands. This is what Catholics and Orthodox mean when they talk about apostolic succession: The authority to perfom efficacious sacraments, as well as the authority to legislate in matters of doctrine, has been passed down in an unbroken line from one generation to the next. This transmission, they hold, is a matter not just of practice (doing what others have done before us) but one of spiritual authority. The authority to do these things is also transmitted--along with the practices.

Of course, one can take an entirely different line on Tradition (see the OP). And one can also take a different line on the sacraments and their efficacy by holding, for instance, that to perform sacraments requires no special authority received from Christ and the Apostles for the reason that sacraments are symbolic reenactments of historical events. Baptism, then, would be seen as a symbolic reenactment of an event in the life of Christ, though not necessarily something that conveys grace or a supernatural reality. One might, for instance, hold that baptism is nothing more nor less than a public affirmation of one's faith, a reflection of one's inner transformation rather than itself a transformative event.

This is, obviously, a rather crude overview. But I hope it helps at least a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

I think it's fair to say that, yes, that helps. I'm confidant that we'll have ample opportunity to take your examples into consideration in detail, but first I have a question (a question I'm sure many who read your post will also have): There were all sorts of traditions in the early Church. We find early Christians teaching and doing all sorts of different things. In virtue of what does any one of these count as a part of Tradition?

Let me dissect your question.

Quote:

We find early Christians teaching and doing all sorts of different things.

I presume you mean that they do many things which appear to be religious and in response to the Gospel.

That is true. Tradition has always been divided into two categories. Sacred Tradition which is the Word of God passed down by Apostolic Authority through the Church. These are are comprised of doctrines, rituals, rites, and other customs. This is also called Tradition with a capital "T".

And disciplines, and pious devotions which were either commanded, approved or recommended by the Church to encourage and promote the faith amongst the People of God. These are called traditions with a small "t" and are subject to change according to what the Magisterium perceives the Laity needs to encourage faith in God.

Quote:

In virtue of what does any one of these count as a part of Tradition?

Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

Tradition with a little "t" is based upon the faith of the people and/or Church authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
I agree.
Well said
Well done
Fred

All:

The Church holds that Holy Scriptures are not the sole revelation of God's truth. Christ commissioned His Apostles to teach the Body of Christ (the Church) those things heard directly from Christ as well as those Devine Truths revealed by the Holy Spirit and yet not in Scripture. It's my understanding that others hold that the Bible is the sole theological truth and is open to private interpretation.

This difference became sorely apparent during the Protestant schism. Luther immediately moved to reconstitute the books of the Bible. At the Council of Trent, the Church fell back on its traditions and canonized the scriptures in the form of the Vulgate. These books had been held by the Church to be sacred shortly after being penned, however have never needed to be authenticated . Relying on its tradition of teaching authority, the Council determined which books where cannon, reiterating its authority to interpret certain passages as revealed truth.

Of course other faiths hold that the sole source of faith is found in the bible, which of course can't be scripturally validated. Furthermore, without the Magisterium of the Church there is no assurance of inerrancy of the Bible. As you know many controversies can arise when in Biblical texts that could lead to doctrinal anarchy in effect distorting God's revelation. Consequently the church holds itself as the authority over Biblical controversies. In doing so, it relies on Apostolic Tradition as well as the Scriptures.

Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.

"Scripture, when illuminated by the "Catholic Religion," or the Catholic Religion when fortified by Scripture, may either of them be called the Gospel committed to the Church, dispensed to the individual." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Lecture 11. On Scripture as the Record of Faith

JoeT

JoeT777,
Well said.
Well done.
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

All:

Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.

JoeT

Truth of faith rest in Christ. Morals and ethics should be the lamp known as the law. Neither of these can I see leaving us unclear with Christ included. We are all subject to free will because it was given unto us by God. Please explain why you feel differently?

We are told to do the traditions which as DeMaria spoke of as T. Quoted DeMaria: Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And don't forget when Peter and John were told by man of the church not to speak of Christ. So we need to judge whether man has authority or if it is God's authority we follow.
Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndbay

Truth of faith rest in Christ. Morals and ethics should be the lamp known as the law. Neither of these can I see leaving us unclear. We are all subject to free will because it was given unto us by God. Please explain why you feel differently?

We are told to do the traditions which as DeMaria spoke of as T. Quoted DeMaria: Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And don't forget when Peter and John were told by man not to speak of Christ. So we need to judge whether man has authority or if it is God's authority we followActs 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

The difference between yours and our understanding of the Word of God is we believe God's authority is passed down through the Church.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation... 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Luke 10 16He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

That is true. Tradition has always been divided into two categories. Sacred Tradition which is the Word of God passed down by Apostolic Authority through the Church. These are are comprised of doctrines, rituals, rites, and other customs. This is also called Tradition with a capital "T".

And disciplines, and pious devotions which were either commanded, approved or recommended by the Church to encourage and promote the faith amongst the People of God. These are called traditions with a small "t" and are subject to change according to what the Magisterium perceives the Laity needs to encourage faith in God.

Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

tradition with a little "t" is based upon the faith of the people and/or Church authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It looks, from what you say, like both big- and little-t tradition are understood to be "based on" Church authority. So two questions occur to me off the bat:
1. How are the two discriminated from one another, and what relative authority is to be accorded to each? Are they equally authoritative?
2. What certifies the beliefs and practices contained in tradition in either of these senses? Are we to say that it is the Church? If so, then, since the authority of the Church is contained in Tradition, it looks like we're using Tradition to certify Tradition.

The second question is, of course, one that some have raised as an objection against the Church's view. I'd like to make sure that response is included in the conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

All:

The Church holds that Holy Scriptures are not the sole revelation of God’s truth. Christ commissioned His Apostles to teach the Body of Christ (the Church) those things heard directly from Christ as well as those Devine Truths revealed by the Holy Spirit and yet not in Scripture. It’s my understanding that others hold that the Bible is the sole theological truth and is open to private interpretation.

This difference became sorely apparent during the Protestant schism. Luther immediately moved to reconstitute the books of the Bible. At the Council of Trent, the Church fell back on its traditions and canonized the scriptures in the form of the Vulgate. These books had been held by the Church to be sacred shortly after being penned, however have never need to deal directly with their authenticity. Relying on its teaching authority, the Council determined which books where cannon reiterating its authority to interpret certain passages as revealed truth.

Of course other faiths hold that the sole source of faith is found in the bible, which of course can’t be scripturally validated. Furthermore, without the Magisterium of the Church there is no assurance of inerrancy of the Bible. As you know many controversies can arise when in Biblical texts that could lead to doctrinal anarchy in effect distorting God’s revelation. Consequently the church holds itself as the authority over Biblical controversies. In doing so, it relies on Apostolic Tradition as well as the Scriptures.

Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.

"Scripture, when illuminated by the "Catholic Religion," or the Catholic Religion when fortified by Scripture, may either of them be called the Gospel committed to the Church, dispensed to the individual." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Lecture 11. On Scripture as the Record of Faith

JoeT

Joe,

You mention the Reformation, and of course this is where the two views I mention in the OP really come apart. My follow-up, on behalf of those who don't regard Tradition as a source of Revelation, is this: Why suppose that we need Tradition to mediate our understanding of Scripture? The Holy Spirit guides each of us, and so long as we read Scripture faithfully, we do not require Tradition. Since you speak of guidance and subjectivity, I thought perhaps you could expand on your response a bit, in the light of the view I just described. I think this might help to bring into better relief what the alternatives are over which people disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Fred,

Thanks for helping us get back on track. Yes, I'm asking about something much older than turkey dinners.

Now, on one way of looking at it, the Bible is part of Tradition because it too is something that has been handed down as part of a deposit of faith. On this view, Scripture and Tradition aren't in tension with one another because Scripture is part of Tradition.

Excellent point. Strictly speaking, the Bible, the book which contains the OT and NT Scriptures, is a Christian Tradition. Before Christians put the Scriptures together in one book, the Scriptures were passed down as various books.

More than that however, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were derived from Old Testament traditions. Except in the few instances where God literally gave a command to write down a few verses, mainly in the Pentateuch (the first 10 books revealed to Moses), the other OT Scriptures were written by Prophets, Priests or their scribes after they had revealed the spoken word to the people.

And for the most part, the Pentateuch followed the same order. So, Scripture followed preaching.

This is confirmed by St. Peter:

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost inspired men to speak first. Their spoken words were later inscribed in Scripture.

We see the same pattern in the Gospels. Jesus spoke, commanded the establishment of Traditions of worship and commanded the Apostles to teach what He commanded. But Jesus wrote not one letter of Scripture.

And the Church began first to worship and to teach. Then the last Apostle, St. Paul began to write, and then the disciples Mark and Luke wrote the Gospels, then Matthew the Apostle wrote his, and the last books written were by the youngest of the Apostles, St. John. So, the New Testament Scripture can be said to be a product of Tradition.

Quote:

Another view holds that although the Bible has been handed down from generation to generation--in the sense that someone had to hand you and me the physical book--there is nothing beyond Scripture that can't be regarded as revelation.

That doesn't seem logical to me.

The Word of God says that God is revealed in nature. And this is so. If we look at the grandeur of nature, we see a shadow of God's greatness. We can record this grandeur in a photograph for instance. We can show this record, this memory, to many people who haven't actually seen a natural wonder like Mt. Everest. But the photograph is not Mt. Everest.

In the same way, the Bible is the record of our Faith in God. But it is not Our Faith itself. The Faith is expressed in the living response of the Community of God to His Word. That response is the Sacred Tradition of worshipping God with our heart, mind, body and soul the way God revealed that He wanted to be worshipped.

Sincerely,

De Maria