"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

[Albion]

Tradition is the method that the Catholic churches, East or West, rely upon. They reject the reliance upon Scripture alone, as most of us know. But these Tradition-oriented churches do not agree on what Tradition is, what doctrines are derived from it, or what the information that constitutes Tradition is.

Which church is right?

How do we know it is the correct one...using Tradition to determine that?

 

[sunlover1]

Both and neither.
That's my final answer.

 

[Albion]

Both and neither.
That's my final answer.

Wait, my friend. I'M not going to feed you a steady stream of trick questions.

You can feel free to elaborate and I promise I won't reply by saying any of the following--

Why haven't you answered me?

I am waiting for your answer.

I hope you are considering answering me.

 

[sunlover1]

Hi Albion.
I appreciate your assurance!
Merry-go-rounds are nice for a moment,
but after a while cause nauseousness.
( I dont think it was his intention btw)

Seriously though, I dont believe that any
group anywhere has it 100% correct (of course
I cant prove that, so please dont make me, lol)
But I believe that all of those who are His,
who are truly seeking God's ways, pursue
truth because it pleases God.

Thy Word have I hid in my heart...
that I might not sin against you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic Denomination chooses, defines and interprets its Denomination's Tradition. It is whatever it itself says it is and means whatever it itself says it means.

The Catholic Denomination then embraces the Tradition of its own self as the final Rule/Canon for the evaluation of whether its Tradition is correct or not.

The Catholic Denomination then appoints itself as the sole arbiter for whether the Tradition that it itself chose, defined and interpreted is in agreement with the Tradition as it itself presents.

The Catholic Denomination predeclares that self CANNOT err when it officially teachings in matters of faith and morals, thus it determines the outcome of this self arbitating if the teachings of self agree with self - even before the arbitration of self occures.






.

 

[jckstraw72]

CJ is wrong. He then declares wrong things as if they are right and as if we are supposed to accept them bc they come from infallible CJ. CJ repeats without ceasing for years. CJ remains wrong.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Denomination chooses, defines and interprets its Denomination's Tradition. It is whatever it itself says it is and means whatever it itself says it means.

The Catholic Denomination then embraces the Tradition of its own self as the final Rule/Canon for the evaluation of whether its Tradition is correct or not.

The Catholic Denomination then appoints itself as the sole arbiter for whether the Tradition that it itself chose, defined and interpreted is in agreement with the Tradition as it itself presents.

The Catholic Denomination predeclares that self CANNOT err when it officially teachings in matters of faith and morals, thus it determines the outcome of this self arbitating if the teachings of self agree with self - even before the arbitration of self occures.

Yes, but I also ask which of the Catholic-style denominations is right? The Roman Church that you apparently refer to has its own interpretation of Tradition which it then treats as you indicate. But other Catholic churches come up with quite different doctrines--all the while claiming that one and only one Tradition leads to that end. Obviously, Tradition can't be correct since it is not known which version of Tradition is the real Tradition.

We might have to conclude that none of them are correct then.

 

[CathNancy]

Hello Albion, I will attempt to the best of my ability to answer your questions. First though we all need to have the same understanding of Tradition and tradition. Holy Tradition is a part of the revelation of God to man and includes Sacred Scripture. Tradition, with a small t is that which has been adopted as disciplines and can be changed, it is not dogma. Examples of tradition are celebecy in the Latin Rite Catholic Church, it is not necesarily practiced in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Holy Tradition though is a part of the full deposit of faith given to the Church by God. Holy Tradition would consist of Scripture, those articles of faith handed down from the Apostles orally and the Magisterium which is the teaching body of the Church. Some of the things that arise from Tradition are the liturgy, btw the Latin Mass is a discipline as is the Novo Ordo of the Mass, the sacraments, the fact that there are seven of them, and the interpretation that the Church applies to Holy Scripture. Because Scripture is a part of Tradition, the two must agree.

I do not want to answer for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, but unless I am mistaken, they view Holy Tradition in much the same way that the Catholic Church sees it. There are differences in how Scripture and Tradition have been interpreted by the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, examples would be original sin, the Filoque (sp?) and the infallibility of the Pope.

As with Sola Scriptura and how I understand it, Sola Scriptura is simply that Scripture is the final authority, Tradition is simply the revelation of God to the Church of who He is and we, Catholics, depend on both Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as the final authority. Personally, I believe that the Catholic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to be the correct one and I therefore am a Catholic. I am sure that those who are Orthodox would disagree with me.

Hope this helps,
Nancy

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic Denomination chooses, defines and interprets its Denomination's Tradition. It is whatever it itself says it is and means whatever it itself says it means.

The Catholic Denomination then embraces the Tradition of its own self as the final Rule/Canon for the evaluation of whether its Tradition is correct or not.

The Catholic Denomination then appoints itself as the sole arbiter for whether the Tradition that it itself chose, defined and interpreted is in agreement with the Tradition as it itself presents.

The Catholic Denomination predeclares that self CANNOT err when it officially teachings in matters of faith and morals, thus it determines the outcome of this self arbitating if the teachings of self agree with self - even before the arbitration of self occures.


.

CJ is wrong. CJ remains wrong.

1. The Catholic Denomination chooses, defines and interprets its Denomination's Tradition. It is whatever it itself says it is and means whatever it itself says it means.

"It is the Authoritative Voice of the [Catholic] Church that determines what is and is not divine Tradition" The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151.


"The task of giving the authoritative interpretation to ...Tradition hs been entrusted to the ... [Catholic] Church Alone." Catholic Catechism # 85


2. The Catholic Denomination then embraces the Tradition of its own self as the final Rule/Canon for the evaluation of whether its Tradition is correct or not.


"Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated that none can stand without the others." Catholic Catechism # 95.

"Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." Catholic Catechism # 82.

"Sacred Scriptue and Sacred Tradition communicate with one another. For both flow from the same divine well-spring." Catholic Catechism # 80


3. The Catholic Denomination then appoints itself as the sole arbiter for whether the Tradition that it itself chose, defined and interpreted is in agreement with the Tradition as it itself presents.

"The task has been entrusted to the [Catholic] bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome" Catholic Catechism # 85

"Mindful of Christ's words to his Apostles, 'He who hears you hears me,' the [Catholic] receives with docility the teachings and directives that are given to them by their [Catholic] pastors in different forms." Catholic Catechism # 87


4. The Catholic Denomination predeclares that self CANNOT err when it officially teachings in matters of faith and morals, thus it determines the outcome of this self arbitating if the teachings of self agree with self - even before the arbitration of self occures.

"Christ has endowed the [Catholic] Church with the charism of infalliblity in matters of faith and morals." Catholic Catechism # 890





.

 

[Albion]

Tradition, with a small t is that which has been adopted as disciplines and can be changed, it is not dogma. Examples of tradition are celebecy in the Latin Rite Catholic Church, it is not necesarily practiced in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Holy Tradition though is a part of the full deposit of faith given to the Church by God. Holy Tradition would consist of Scripture, those articles of faith handed down from the Apostles orally and the Magisterium which is the teaching body of the Church.

Leaving tradition aside, and turning to Holy Tradition which was the topic I was addressing, how does anyone know which church's interpretation of all that is the right one?

I do not want to answer for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, but unless I am mistaken, they view Holy Tradition in much the same way that the Catholic Church sees it. There are differences in how Scripture and Tradition have been interpreted by the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, examples would be original sin, the Filoque (sp?) and the infallibility of the Pope.

We'd have to conclude, then, that it is not known whose interpretation of the factors which go into Tradition is correct. Since there is not agreement, can it be said that Tradition leads to the truth?

As with Sola Scriptura and how I understand it, Sola Scriptura is simply that Scripture is the final authority, Tradition is simply the revelation of God to the Church of who He is and we, Catholics, depend on both Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as the final authority.

Which is it--Scripture, Tradition, or the Magesterium? Wouldn't it be Tradition, meaning the summary of it all, as the Church decrees it to be?

Thanks, Nancy

 

[nestoj]

Yes, but I also ask which of the Catholic-style denominations is right? The Roman Church that you apparently refer to has its own interpretation of Tradition which it then treats as you indicate. But other Catholic churches come up with quite different doctrines--all the while claiming that one and only one Tradition leads to that end. Obviously, Tradition can't be correct since it is not known which version of Tradition is the real Tradition.

We might have to conclude that none of them are correct then.

By induction, your argument leads to the "Bible is wrong" conclusion.

God helps

 

[Albion]

By induction, your argument leads to the "Bible is wrong" conclusion.

No it doesn't. But while you're here, would you like to answer the question posed by the thead? See the title above. Which Tradition is the correct one?

 

[nestoj]

No it doesn't. But while you're here, would you like to answer the question posed by the thread? See the title above. Which Tradition is the correct one?

It does:

Obviously, Tradition can't be correct since it is not known which version of Tradition is the real Tradition.

Obviously, the Bible can't be correct since it is not known which version of Bible is the real Bible. (referring to the differences we have in what passages are included when it comes to trinitarian Christians, what was and what wasn't correctly translated and what is utter lie and addition to the Bible - non-Christians).

About the correct interpretation of the Tradition, the Church has it. The Bible is Tradition. If written by Christ himself, and without the writings of the Apostles, we could discuss further. Since it wasn't written by Christ himself, but by the people who ware witnesses or heard the witnessing of others (Gospels) then it is a part of Tradition (knowledge of the Church). As are the Apostolic letters, the Psalms, the OT, the writings of the ECF, icon writings...etc .

God helps

 

[Philothei]

You have stated wrong premises here.... I do not agree in how you present us... totally biased...


[quote]Tradition is the method that the Catholic churches, East or West, rely upon.[/quote]

tradition is not a "method" is a ethos of Christian living, it is the "living tradtion of the church and the Apostles". There are no "Catholic Churches" one One Holy Apostolic and Catholic (universal) Church. East and West was one Church

They reject the reliance upon Scripture alone, as most of us know.

We rejected it as it has not been the ethos of the church and the way that the Apostles and their descendants, the fathers.They did base their ministry on a "mind of the Church tradition". That oral tradition was written down to the Gospels but not all tradition is recorded to the canon and nowhere it says that ONLY the Bible is what Christ either did or taught...


But these Tradition-oriented churches do not agree on what Tradition is, what doctrines are derived from it, or what the information that constitutes Tradition is.

Which church is right?

How do we know it is the correct one...using Tradition to determine that?[/quote]


These "Tradition oriented churches" have the same tradition and a common thread. The all start with the same Church... As the Church grew the split between West and East took place. It is easy to determine that in the EAst where it all statrted.... the EO Church kept dogma, and ethos of the Church together all until today. Never changing dogma, keeping the ethos of the faith community of the early Church alive. the counciliar nature of the church and its ecumenical spirit is what guaranteed its correct dogma, as the church "moves" (or does not) according to the conscience of the universal Church. The papal primacy has presented the Church as a "thorn on its side" and thus has divided it... As much as unfortunate it is I think it is to be blamed for the many different doctrines (at times dangerous ones such as the immaculate conception etc...) ....

 

[thereselittleflower]

You have stated wrong premises here.... I do not agree in how you present us... totally biased...

Tradition is the method that the Catholic churches, East or West, rely upon.

tradition is not a "method"

That is exactly right, it is not a method at all. It is a reality. It is a tool just as much as scripture is a tool. It is doctrne, teaching, the divine relvealtion given to the apostles, the all truth given them through the Holy Spirit.

is a ethos of Christian living, it is the "living tradtion of the church and the Apostles". There are no "Catholic Churches" one One Holy Apostolic and Catholic (universal) Church. East and West was one Church

We rejected it as it has not been the ethos of the church and the way that the Apostles and their descendants, the fathers.They did base their ministry on a "mind of the Church tradition". That oral tradition was written down to the Gospels but not all tradition is recorded to the canon and nowhere it says that ONLY the Bible is what Christ either did or taught...

Amen.

But these Tradition-oriented churches do not agree on what Tradition is, what doctrines are derived from it, or what the information that constitutes Tradition is.

Which church is right?

How do we know it is the correct one...using Tradition to determine that?

These "Tradition oriented churches" have the same tradition and a common thread. The all start with the same Church... As the Church grew the split between West and East took place. It is easy to determine that in the EAst where it all statrted.... the EO Church kept dogma, and ethos of the Church together all until today. Never changing dogma, keeping the ethos of the faith community of the early Church alive. the counciliar nature of the church and its ecumenical spirit is what guaranteed its correct dogma, as the church "moves" (or does not) according to the conscience of the universal Church. The papal primacy has presented the Church as a "thorn on its side" and thus has divided it... As much as unfortunate it is I think it is to be blamed for the many different doctrines (at times dangerous ones such as the immaculate conception etc...) ....

I am sorry you feel that way about the papal primacy, and I realize that this has been a problem for the EO for a while, though why it is a problem we will absolutely disagree on. However, let's not fall into quibbling about the differences between the East and West for then this thread will devolve into a debate between us instead of defending Tradition against those who attack its validity in favor of a vaguely defined concept called Sola Scriptura which no one has been able to give an agreed upon defintion or tell us how it is validated.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It does:

Obviously, the Bible can't be correct since it is not known which version of Bible is the real Bible. (referring to the differences we have in what passages are included when it comes to trinitarian Christians, what was and what wasn't correctly translated and what is utter lie and addition to the Bible - non-Christians).

About the correct interpretation of the Tradition, the Church has it. The Bible is Tradition. If written by Christ himself, and without the writings of the Apostles, we could discuss further. Since it wasn't written by Christ himself, but by the people who ware witnesses or heard the witnessing of others (Gospels) then it is a part of Tradition (knowledge of the Church). As are the Apostolic letters, the Psalms, the OT, the writings of the ECF, icon writings...etc .

God helps

I wish the rep feature was working. Great post!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As with Sola Scriptura and how I understand it, Sola Scriptura is simply that Scripture is the final authority, Tradition is simply the revelation of God to the Church of who He is and we, Catholics, depend on both Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as the final authority. Personally, I believe that the Catholic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to be the correct one and I therefore am a Catholic. I am sure that those who are Orthodox would disagree with me.

Isn't that mainly over the Pope and Papacy of Rome?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7131625

Romans 16:20 The yet God of the Peace shall be crushing the Adversary/Satan under the feet of ye in/en <1722> swiftness/tacei <5034>. The grace of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, with ye.

Revelation 1:1 An-un-covering Jesus Christ, which gives to Him, the GOD/YHWH, to show to the bond-servants of Him, which-things is binding to be becoming in/en <1722> Swiftness/tacei <5034>.

 

[Albion]

[quote]Tradition is the method that the Catholic churches, East or West, rely upon.

tradition is not a "method" is a ethos of Christian living, it is the "living tradtion of the church and the Apostles". There are no "Catholic Churches" one One Holy Apostolic and Catholic (universal) Church. East and West was one Church

Wow, did you miss the point altogether or are you just showing your complete loyalty to your church? And yes, we've already had the tracts quoted to us many times and been told by other dedicated church members that they believe all of it.

But these Tradition-oriented churches do not agree on what Tradition is, what doctrines are derived from it, or what the information that constitutes Tradition is.

Which church is right?

How do we know it is the correct one...using Tradition to determine that?

These "Tradition oriented churches" have the same tradition and a common thread.

They do indeed claim the same tradition. The point of the thread, if you were to read it in the OP and the title, is that they come up with different and contrasting doctrines while claiming to use the same Tradtion to get there.

That being so, Tradition is whatever any such church body wants to make it be.

 

[Philothei]

the EO Church kept dogma, and ethos of the Church together all until today. Never changing dogma, keeping the ethos of the faith community of the early Church alive. the counciliar nature of the church and its ecumenical spirit is what guaranteed its correct dogma, as the church "moves" (or does not) according to the conscience of the universal Church. The papal primacy has presented the Church as a "thorn on its side" and thus has divided it... As much as unfortunate it is I think it is to be blamed for the many different doctrines (at times dangerous ones such as the immaculate conception etc...) ....

I think you missed this..... ^ That is how we view the difference in "tradition" that all the west does follow "the traditions" of their own idea of the church... and they 'developed" doctrine... The Reformation with "sola scriptura" and the RC with all the others.. simple... Nothing to hide here....

 

[chestertonrules]

By induction, your argument leads to the "Bible is wrong" conclusion.

God helps

Catholics believe that the bible is the word of God.

Among it's important verses:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."