Ask Me Help Desk - Scripture & Tradition

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