Defining "Sacred Tradition"

[simonthezealot]

Roman Catholicism claims that even it's non-Biblical dogmas are "Sacred Tradition".

So, define exactly what "Sacred Tradition" is, and where it came from.

 

[boswd]

Don't the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox hold sacred Traditions to the same high standard as the RCC?

How come you didn't include them in the question?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Defining "Sacred Tradition"

I suppose that means whatever denomination holds a Tradition Sacred, is Sacred to them?

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brothers, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written, that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the different one.

Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 4:6 tauta de adelfoi meteschmatisa eiV emauton kai apollw di umaV ina en hmin maqhte to mh uper o gegraptai fronein ina mh eiV uper tou enoV fusiousqe kata tou eterou


Go St. Tyndale!

 

[Kristos]

Maybe it would be good to define some terminology-

By non-Biblical, I assume you mean: Things that cannot be found in Scripture in any way, implicit or explicit, but are not explicitly prohibited

Then, we also need a term to define those things that are not viewed by the holder as contrary to Scripture, but would be implicitly define by Scripture. Perhaps, extra-Biblical?

And for things explicity prohibited, perhaps con-Biblical?

 

[Albion]

I agree that "Sacred Tradition" applies to other churches of the catholic fold, not just the RCC. But perhaps the OP had in mind that the RCC and its people here seem to speak of it in more precise terms than some others. For example, it appears correct that some Eastern Christians only mean that they hold to that which they are persuaded is in accord with Apostolic practice and has been handed down. The RCC, on the other hand, certainly considers Sacred Tradition to be a second source of Divine Revelation, the other being the Bible. Often, in fact, RC posters on these forums have described the Bible as nothing more than a primer, a starter source, and that THE CHURCH, acting through Sacred Tradition, is the more authoritative.

Customarily, St. Vincent of Lerins is cited when Sacred Tradition is being explained. He said that that which has been believed everywhere (in the church), always, and by all is the Catholic faith...and this also is the test of any doctrine, i.e. has it always been believed in the church, everywhere there is the church, and by all (with the exception of rank heretics who place themselves outside of the church)?

 

[Kristos]

Don't the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox hold sacred Traditions to the same high standard as the RCC?

How come you didn't include them in the question?

Since you brought it up.

EO holds Sacred Tradition to be ALL things revealed by God to His Church. These revelations are not limited to written word as we see in the Scripture itself, in that the written word was part of the teaching. Holy Tradition, of which Holy Scripture is a part, includes the writings, teachings, acts of the apostles, saints, martyrs, and fathers of the Church, and her liturgical and sacramental traditions throughout the ages, the oral tradition of the early Church and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. All of this collective wisdom and experience through the centuries are combined to form Tradition.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree that "Sacred Tradition" applies to other churches of the catholic fold, not just the RCC. But perhaps the OP had in mind that the RCC and its people here seem to speak of it in more precise terms than some others. For example, it appears correct that some Eastern Christians only mean that they hold to that which they are persuaded is in accord with Apostolic practice and has been handed down. The RCC, on the other hand, certainly considers Sacred Tradition to be a second source of Divine Revelation, the other being the Bible. Often, in fact, RC posters on these forums have described the Bible as nothing more than a primer, a starter source, and that THE CHURCH, acting through Sacred Tradition, is the more authoritative.

Customarily, St. Vincent of Lerins is cited when Sacred Tradition is being explained. He said that that which has been believed everywhere (in the church), always, and by all is the Catholic faith...and this also is the test of any doctrine, i.e. has it always been believed in the church, everywhere there is the church, and by all (with the exception of rank heretics who place themselves outside of the church)?

Rank heretics............dogs........outside the City.......Repent!

Phil 3:2 Beware of-the Dogs/kunaV <2965>, beware of-the evil workers, beware of-the circumcision!
3 For we-are the circumcision, ones to Spirit of God worship/latreuonteV <3000> , boasting in Christ Jesus, and not in flesh having confidence.

Revelation 22:15 Without the Dogs/kuneV <2965>, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a Falsehood .

Go St. Tyndale!

 

[boswd]

Since you brought it up.

EO holds Sacred Tradition to be ALL things revealed by God to His Church. These revelations are not limited to written word as we see in the Scripture itself, in that the written word was part of the teaching. Holy Tradition, of which Holy Scripture is a part, includes the writings, teachings, acts of the apostles, saints, martyrs, and fathers of the Church, and her liturgical and sacramental traditions throughout the ages, the oral tradition of the early Church and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. All of this collective wisdom and experience through the centuries are combined to form Tradition.

Thanks Kristo's

I only brought up the EO and OO as just to point out that this is just going to be another one of his anti Catholic threads.

God Bless.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks Kristo's

I only brought up the EO and OO as just to point out that this is just going to be another one of his anti Catholic threads.

God Bless.

What about Pro-Scripture instead

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7005974&page=79
Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7001922&page=20
Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? (2)

Go St. Tyndale!

 

[Albion]

Since you brought it up.

EO holds Sacred Tradition to be ALL things revealed by God to His Church. These revelations are not limited to written word as we see in the Scripture itself, in that the written word was part of the teaching. Holy Tradition, of which Holy Scripture is a part, includes the writings, teachings, acts of the apostles, saints, martyrs, and fathers of the Church, and her liturgical and sacramental traditions throughout the ages, the oral tradition of the early Church and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. All of this collective wisdom and experience through the centuries are combined to form Tradition.

Taking that to be correct, I'd think we should include it in the discussion. This is not inherently an anti-RCC thread.

Now--having your explanation of Sacred tradition before us--we might move to the second part of the OP's question. How do you know which legends, teachings, oral tradition, etc. are valid and which are not? Just that "the Church," meaning your own part of it, has accepted them and not others? Is that it?

Based on what I've heard from other Eastern Christians, it is. You can see why Bible-believers, as we consider ourselves to be, are put off, to say the least, by the treatment of custom, convention, traditions, councils, etc. as being "revealed by God to his church." It sounds nice to say that, and I'm sure it's reassuring to do so, but what makes all this into something that is "revealed by God?" There is no doubting that there have been ideas held by the churches in the past that were wrong, many of them now rejected by the churches themselves.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It sounds nice to say that, and I'm sure it's reassuring to do so, but what makes all this into something that is "revealed by God?" There is no doubting that there have been ideas held by the churches in the past that were wrong, many of them now rejected by the churches themselves.

Greetings and very nice post.
My humble view is that if most Christians would quit calling the book of "Revelation" an "Apocalyptic" book, more of the mysteries of that book of Redemption could be revealed. Thoughts?

Luke 2:32 A Light into un-covering/un-veiling/apo-kaluyin <602> of Nations and glory of Thy people Israel.

Revelation 1:1 An-un-covering/apo-kaluyiV <602> of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to the bond-servants of Him which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness............

Go St. Tyndale!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Roman Catholicism claims that even it's non-Biblical dogmas are "Sacred Tradition".

So, define exactly what "Sacred Tradition" is, and where it came from.

Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone [Sola Ecclesia]. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connecated and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95


Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community.





Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[simonthezealot]

Taking that to be correct, I'd think we should include it in the discussion. This is not inherently an anti-RCC thread.

It's true there is nothing inherently anti-catholic in defining or searching for a definition to what "sacred tradition" is.
When I mentioned the RCC it is because in them I am aware that they have established the maxim that dogma need not be grounded in scripture or even in the earliest Christian communities yet it can still be dogma.

How do you know which legends, teachings, oral tradition, etc. are valid and which are not? Just that "the Church," meaning your own part of it, has accepted them and not others? Is that it?

Gonna be waiting on this one i'd suppose.

You can see why Bible-believers, as we consider ourselves to be, are put off, to say the least, by the treatment of custom, convention, traditions, councils, etc. as being "revealed by God to his church." It sounds nice to say that, and I'm sure it's reassuring to do so, but what makes all this into something that is "revealed by God?" There is no doubting that there have been ideas held by the churches in the past that were wrong, many of them now rejected by the churches themselves.

Yes good point! it reminds me of a counsil I was reading about, it was the one which clarified Holy Scripture everyone likes to show how that counsil used tradition for that decision yet there was other items approved at the counsil that the church is at odds with now?? Anyone else see the problem here?
Sorry I don't recall the specifics but i'll dig through my notes if it's of interest.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes good point! it reminds me of a counsil I was reading about, it was the one which clarified Holy Scripture everyone likes to show how that counsil used tradition for that decision yet there was other items approved at the counsil that the church is at odds with now?? Anyone else see the problem here?
Sorry I don't recall the specifics but i'll dig through my notes if it's of interest.

Greetings stz!!! A lot of that can be found on the Christian History board......Peace.......

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7289931
Church Tradition and Popular Celebrations

Go St. Tyndale!

 

[Rick Otto]

The council that defined the Immaculate Conception & Infallability was manipulated heavy handedly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The council that defined the Immaculate Conception & Infallability was manipulated heavy handedly.

Greetings! The way this looks, it appears they are still trying to define it.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6895541&page=43
Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

Go St. Tyndale!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sacred Tradition = anything we've believed for a long time, and need a theological crutch to support because you can't find it in scripture.

It may, or may not actually be true, of course.

 

[Kristos]

The alternate being - I read this 2000+ year old book and have only now discovered it's true meaning.

 

[Ormly]

Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone [Sola Ecclesia]. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connecated and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95


Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community.





Pax!


- Josiah
.

Great! Now which one should be considered "Orthodox"?

 

[ikonographics]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

That is Holy Tradition