Problems with Sacred Tradition

Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
We have been discussing Holy Tradition in contrast to Sola Scriptura. In other words, as each defines essential doctrine for the people of God. How does Holy Tradition do that, as you understand it?
Holy Tradition contains the grace of God within it, just as the Holy Scriptures do. By Living the Holy Tradition and obeying God's will revealed in Scripture, the Holy Spirit work and the Word work within you, enabling the glory and Love of God to become known insofar as you can bear it. For us, there is no separating of Holy Tradition from Holy Scripture. They belong together, and we must have both.
You do know that Jesus went on to explain the meaning of the parables to the disciples, right? The mysteries of the kingdom are not so mystical that they cannot be articulated.
I've articulated them. But God cannot be known through articulation. God must be known in Communion with the Holy Spirit. Articulation can only try to explain things about God. This is not the same thing as knowing God. God is known only by those who have become like God is. To know the glory of God and to know the Love of God is the same thing as having that glory and Love oneself. This is done by the Holy Spirit, through repentance.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Holy Tradition contains the grace of God within it, just as the Holy Scriptures do. By Living the Holy Tradition and obeying God's will revealed in Scripture, the Holy Spirit work and the Word work within you, enabling the glory and Love of God to become known insofar as you can bear it. For us, there is no separating of Holy Tradition from Holy Scripture. They belong together, and we must have both.
So, no answer about how doctrine is determined?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,724
7,426
Dallas
✟896,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Roman Catholics, and to some extent Eastern Orthodox, reject Sola Scriptura because they believe that the Word of God is infallibly conveyed not in Scripture alone, but in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Father George Tavard, Catholic theologian, says that Sacred Tradition is: "inseparable from the Bible itself. Both are to be read together. They stand or fall together."

But what exactly is meant by "Sacred Tradition"? It appears difficult to define. The Council of Trent defined it like this:

"[the Gospel is] the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. [This council] clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were by hand... [This council receives the books of Scripture and] also morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession."
According to these words, Sacred Tradition is the collection of "saving truths" to believe and "rules of conduct" to live by which were taught by Christ, received and taught by the apostles, and passed on to the bishops in every age of the church, but were not written down.

Sacred Tradition also appears to include how the church fathers traditionally interpreted Scripture. Trent again:

"[No individual should] presume to interpret [the Scriptures] in accordance with his own conceptions...contrary to the sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers..."
Sacred Tradition is, then, also the way that the Catholic Church has tended to interpret the Bible. Tavard summarizes Trent's view on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture like this:

"Scripture contains all revealed doctrine, and the Church's faith which includes apostolic traditions, interprets it."​

R.A.F. Mackenzie, Catholic theologian, furthermore adds that Sacred Tradition includes the present application of Scripture and church teaching to new questions faced by the church. He says of Scripture alone:

"...a written record is a dead letter, needing constant interpretation and commentary in succeeding ages. It cannot of itself answer new questions, or explain what was once clear and has now become obscure. The writings transmitted in a living community, from one generation to another, are accompanied by a continuous tradition of understanding and explanation...which applies them...to the solving of new problems."
So altogether, we can say that Sacred Tradition is a collection of teachings concerning things we should believe and do which were taught by Jesus Christ but not written down, how the church has historically interpreted Scripture, the doctrinal statements of the church which come from her councils, and how the Bible is currently interpreted by the church to answer new questions and solve new problems.

What are the problems with the concept of Sacred Tradition? There are several:
  1. Apart from the authoritative writings of the apostles, we cannot be sure that a teaching came from Christ or the apostles because men are fallible.

  2. Just because an interpretation of Scripture enjoys a long tradition and antiquity does not make this interpretation correct. If it can be shown, from Scripture itself, that a traditional interpretation is wrong then it should be rejected.

  3. The Magisterium of the Catholic church has often taught doctrines which are not substantiated by Scripture. Therefore the claim that Catholic Tradition and Scripture are always perfectly unified is false. Many Catholic doctrines go well beyond Scripture and some even flatly contradict Scripture. If "tradition" were nothing more than the accurate interpretation of Scripture then we should accept tradition as the Word of God. But Catholic Tradition often goes beyond Scripture.

  4. This makes the rulings, interpretations, and doctrinal statements of the church irrevocable. We cannot change Scripture because it is the word of God. But if the church made a wrong judgment at a particular time in history, the church of later generations should have the freedom to recognize this erroneous judgment and to correct it. There's no reason why this cannot be part of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth.

  5. This very process was occurring in Jesus' own day with the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes. Pharisaical teaching surrounding Scripture and ultimately came to obscure and go beyond Scripture. Jesus contradicted the Pharisees, condemned this practice, and sought to go back to Scripture itself.

  6. This really just amounts to saying that Catholic Doctrine is infallible. Since the concept of Sacred Tradition was not really developed until the Council of Trent, it is obvious that this was a move from the Roman Church to respond to the Reformation. Any doctrinal statements or interpretations of any church are always subject to the Word of God and open to question. If it can be demonstrated that such a judgment does not concord with God's Word then it should be rejected.

I wouldn’t put too much thought into what the RCC decided at the council of Trent. The RCC has apologized for the actions of those men on a few occasions because of the terrible atrocities they committed. Both the councils of Florence and Trent were during the darkest time in history for the RCC. As far as traditions personally I would stick to the traditions before 1054AD.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I wouldn’t put too much thought into what the RCC believed and taught during the council of Trent. The RCC has apologized for the actions of those men on a few occasions because of the terrible atrocities they committed. Both the councils of Florence and Trent were during the darkest time in history for the RCC.

So the RCC no longer holds to Trent?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Holy Tradition contains the grace of God within it, just as the Holy Scriptures do. By Living the Holy Tradition and obeying God's will revealed in Scripture, the Holy Spirit work and the Word work within you, enabling the glory and Love of God to become known insofar as you can bear it. For us, there is no separating of Holy Tradition from Holy Scripture. They belong together, and we must have both.

I've articulated them. But God cannot be known through articulation. God must be known in Communion with the Holy Spirit. Articulation can only try to explain things about God. This is not the same thing as knowing God. God is known only by those who have become like God is. To know the glory of God and to know the Love of God is the same thing as having that glory and Love oneself. This is done by the Holy Spirit, through repentance.

Ok well maybe we can find some common ground here.

If "Holy Tradition" cannot be defined or articulated, can we just agree that it doesn't matter?
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So, no answer about how doctrine is determined?
doctrine is already determined, since Pentecost, as the Holy Spirit led the Apostles into all Truth. Articulation of doctrine was the ministry of the saints, in councils, writings, hymns, prayers, practices throughout the age of the Church. How did the saints determine doctrine? Repentance, with prayer and fasting along with obeying the will of God revealed in Holy Scripture. By this they came to know and Love God in the Holy Spirit, and were able to reject lies about God and our Life in God, because they know God.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Ok well maybe we can find some common ground here.

If "Holy Tradition" cannot be defined or articulated, can we just agree that it doesn't matter?
Living the Life of Holy Tradition in the Church can also be defined as Living the Life of repentance in order to receive the Kingdom of God within oneself. If repentance doesn't matter, they I guess that Holy Tradition doesn't matter, because they are one. If repentance does matter, then Holy Tradition matters just as much.

Does repentance matter?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
doctrine is already determined, since Pentecost, as the Holy Spirit led the Apostles into all Truth.
It is to the credit of the Orthodox churches that they are not creating new doctrines all the time, like Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and so on. BUT the Orthodox churches did dogmatize certain beliefs in an earlier time which were not based on Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Living the Life of Holy Tradition in the Church can also be defined as Living the Life of repentance in order to receive the Kingdom of God within oneself. If repentance doesn't matter, they I guess that Holy Tradition doesn't matter, because they are one. If repentance does matter, then Holy Tradition matters just as much.

Does repentance matter?

Ok. So "Holy Tradition" is identical to repentance? If this is the case, then to accept the necessity of Holy Tradition does not conflict in any way with Sola Scriptura.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And let's not forget about Flerdin Blourbain. Flerdin Blourbain works together with Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture and contains the grace of God within it as well. Flerdin Blourbain and Holy Scripture are inseparable and one cannot stand without the other.
Would you mind telling me about Flerdin Blourbain? I Googled but there weren't any results. I don't know about this person.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Would you mind telling me about Flerdin Blourbain? I Googled but there weren't any results. I don't know about this person.

Flerdin Blourbain is mystical. Only true believers in Christ understand what it is.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Ok. So "Holy Tradition" is identical to repentance? If this is the case, then to accept the necessity of Holy Tradition does not conflict in any way with Sola Scriptura.
Well, it does, because even the unrepentant can read out of the Bible and still not be anything like the God they are reading about. They do not know God, and so they cannot know the True meaning of God's Word. Repentance is how we permit the growth of the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. The Holy Spirit reveals the glory and Love of God.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Roman Catholics, and to some extent Eastern Orthodox, reject Sola Scriptura because they believe that the Word of God is infallibly conveyed not in Scripture alone, but in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
"To some extent"? If there's any great amount of daylight between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church when it comes to this issue, I guess I haven't heard about it. I welcome input from Eastern Orthodox about this though, maybe I'm forgetting something.

Father George Tavard, Catholic theologian, says that Sacred Tradition is: "inseparable from the Bible itself. Both are to be read together. They stand or fall together."
A statement which has the benefit of being objectively true. Specifically, all Christians depend upon some level of sacred tradition simply to claim "sola scriptura". After all, the saying goes that the Holy Spirit never inspired a divine table of contents.

But what exactly is meant by "Sacred Tradition"?
A continuity of belief beginning with Our Lord founding the Church and extending into the present day through an unbroken line of succession.

R.A.F. Mackenzie, Catholic theologian, furthermore adds that Sacred Tradition includes the present application of Scripture and church teaching to new questions faced by the church. He says of Scripture alone:

"...a written record is a dead letter, needing constant interpretation and commentary in succeeding ages. It cannot of itself answer new questions, or explain what was once clear and has now become obscure. The writings transmitted in a living community, from one generation to another, are accompanied by a continuous tradition of understanding and explanation...which applies them...to the solving of new problems."
All of which is quite true.

Apart from the authoritative writings of the apostles,
They're "authoritative" only because sacred tradition says so. There's no other objective way of knowing for sure that their writings are inspired.

we cannot be sure that a teaching came from Christ or the apostles because men are fallible.
The people who wrote the New Testament were no more and no less fallible than people of today are. The people who recognized the New Testament canon were no more and no less fallible than people of today are.

The Holy Spirit guided both groups of people. The Catholic Church believes that guidance continues to this day, that's all.

Just because an interpretation of Scripture enjoys a long tradition and antiquity does not make this interpretation correct.
At a minimum, a long tradition extending back into antiquity shows what was normative belief in those days. So the logical question is where exactly some of these doctrines came from. Take St. Ignatius, for example. He called anybody who doesn't regard the Eucharist as the body and blood of Our Lord a heretic. Where exactly did he get that idea?

The Magisterium of the Catholic church has often taught doctrines which are not substantiated by Scripture. Therefore the claim that Catholic Tradition and Scripture are always perfectly unified is false. Many Catholic doctrines go well beyond Scripture and some even flatly contradict Scripture. If "tradition" were nothing more than the accurate interpretation of Scripture then we should accept tradition as the Word of God. But Catholic Tradition often goes beyond Scripture.
Whether a doctrine appears in scripture or not is of zero importance in Catholicism. If a given doctrine can be deduced from sacred scripture, fine. But we don't limit doctrinal insight or moral teaching to the scriptures.

The Church regards the Bible as a compendium of sacred scripture. However, the Church does not consider the Bible to be a book of rules, a systematic listing of various doctrines or some type of constitution.

This very process was occurring in Jesus' own day with the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes.
For everything we could say about the Pharisees and scribes, they would've been the first to admit that their practices were not inspired. They wouldn't have claimed that the things for which Our Lord (rightly) rebuked them was sacred tradition.

I realize it's easy to conflate the safeguards the Pharisees had placed around the Law with sacred tradition as traditional Christians reckon it. But ancient Judaism was by no means a "sola scriptura" religion. Israelites had authority quite apart from God's written word and understood the distinction between sacred tradition and the legalistic burdens imposed by the Pharisees onto the faithful of Our Lord's time.

This really just amounts to saying that Catholic Doctrine is infallible.
We believe that it is.

Since the concept of Sacred Tradition was not really developed until the Council of Trent,
Nice try. But sacred tradition was understood by the Church to exist long before the Council of Trent.

Now, I wouldn't be shocked if the Council of Trent has the longest explications of sacred tradition... considering that sacred tradition was under assault by various "reformers". But that hardly makes sacred tradition an innovation of the Council of Trent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It is to the credit of the Orthodox churches that they are not creating new doctrines all the time, like Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and so on. BUT the Orthodox churches did dogmatize certain beliefs in an earlier time which were not based on Scripture.
If such dogmatized beliefs are proven to be contradictory of positively established Truth of Scripture then this is a problem.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Well, it does, because even the unrepentant can read out of the Bible and still not be anything like the God they are reading about. They do not know God, and so they cannot know the True meaning of God's Word. Repentance is how we permit the growth of the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. The Holy Spirit reveals the glory and Love of God.

I'm all about repentance. I agree that we need both repentance and Scripture. I've totally misunderstood this "Holy Tradition" thing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
They're "authoritative" only because sacred tradition says so. There's no other objective way of knowing for sure that their writings are inspired.

How do we know that Sacred Tradition is authoritative? Is this also because Sacred Tradition says so?

Whether a doctrine appears in scripture or not is of zero importance in Catholicism. If a given doctrine can be deduced from sacred scripture, fine. But we don't limit doctrinal insight or moral teaching to the scriptures.

This is rather alarming. Catholics don't need to get their doctrine from Scripture.

Nice try. But sacred tradition was understood by the Church to exist long before the Council of Trent.

This is a matter of debate. I'm not convinced that the concept of Sacred Tradition was neatly developed at all even until Vatican II. Trent took the first crack at it. Try to find some Catholic sources pre-Trent which really attempted to develop the concept of Sacred Tradition. You'll find the word "tradition" in Catholic writings, but the concept of "Sacred Tradition" is not what's being communicated.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
How do we know that Sacred Tradition is authoritative? Is this also because Sacred Tradition says so?
How do we know sacred scripture is authoritative? Sacred tradition says so. Logically, I don't see a way around accepting some level of tradition to be any kind of Christian.

This is rather alarming. Catholics don't need to get their doctrine from Scripture.
A fact which we do nothing to conceal. And come to that, we're frequently smeared by Protestants on CF (and other places, to be fair) for our lack of dependence on sacred scripture as compared to a lot of Protestant ecclesial communities.

This is a matter of debate.
Not really. If sacred tradition was created by the Council of Trent, why does the idea of "sola scriptura" predate the Council? Luther wasn't acting out in a vacuum. Among other things, he objected to ideas and doctrines that he, for whatever reason, could not adduce from the scriptures. If your view is that the Council of Trent invented sacred tradition out of whole cloth, it raises the question of exactly what Luther was protesting.

I'm not convinced that the concept of Sacred Tradition was neatly developed at all even until Vatican II.
I'm sorry to hear that.

You'll find the word "tradition" in Catholic writings, but the concept of "Sacred Tradition" is not what's being communicated.
No dice. Tradition and sacred tradition have been used interchangeably by different people at different times.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,251
✟48,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
How do we know sacred scripture is authoritative? Sacred tradition says so. Logically, I don't see a way around accepting some level of tradition to be any kind of Christian.

The Reformed answer is to say that we know that Scripture is authoritative because Scripture says so. If Scripture is the Word of God, then it makes sense that it needs nothing else to attest to its authority. God's Word is the highest authority and thus cannot rely on anything else to attest to its authority. When God swears in Scripture, he swears by Himself. This is why I believe in Sola Scriptura.

But you've got a problem. You say that we don't know that Scripture is authoritative unless Tradition tells us so. So, in your view, how do we know that Tradition is authoritative? Is it because Tradition tells us so? If so, then your view amounts to Sola Ecclesia.

Not really. If sacred tradition was created by the Council of Trent, why does the idea of "sola scriptura" predate the Council? Luther wasn't acting out in a vacuum. Among other things, he objected to ideas and doctrines that he, for whatever reason, could not adduce from the scriptures. If your view is that the Council of Trent invented sacred tradition out of whole cloth, it raises the question of exactly what Luther was protesting.

Sola Scriptura was formulated to combat Catholic doctrines which have no foundation in Scripture. Trent's formulation of "Sacred Tradition" arose in response to Sola Scriptura.

No dice. Tradition and sacred tradition have been used interchangeably by different people at different times.

Could you demonstrate how the full-orbed concept of Sacred Tradition existed before Trent? When the ECFs talk about tradition they appear to be talking about apostolic teaching contained in Scripture.
 
Upvote 0