Examples of Sacred Tradition

[Tree of Life]

Catholics and EO deny that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals. By this, they mean that we cannot know, from Scripture alone, all that is necessary for saving faith and to live lives pleasing to God. This furthermore means that there is authoritative teaching outside of Scripture which is necessary in order for people to be saved and to know the will of God and obey Him.

I think that this was a move from the Catholic Church at the time of Trent to seek to guard herself from the assaults of the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers attacked Roman doctrines which had no basis in Scripture. In response, the RCC solidified the idea of "Sacred Tradition" so that her unbiblical doctrines would have a leg to stand on. Catholics will disagree with this reading of history, which is fine. That's not the point of this thread.

I think that the best way to argue for "Sacred Tradition" would be to give some examples of it. I would like for Catholics and/or Orthodox folks to provide some examples of Sacred Tradition. Please provide some examples of teachings which are necessary for faith and life, which have some origin in Jesus and the apostles, but which are not clearly laid out in Scripture.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RC1970]

I think it is an issue of authority. Do we except the authority of the Word of God or the traditions of men?

Mark 7:6-8

And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

 

[~Anastasia~]

Catholics and EO deny that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals. By this, they mean that we cannot know, from Scripture alone, all that is necessary for saving faith and to live lives pleasing to God. This furthermore means that there is authoritative teaching outside of Scripture which is necessary in order for people to be saved and to know the will of God and obey Him.

I think that this was a move from the Catholic Church at the time of Trent to seek to guard herself from the assaults of the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers attacked Roman doctrines which had no basis in Scripture. In response, the RCC solidified the idea of "Sacred Tradition" so that her unbiblical doctrines would have a leg to stand on. Catholics will disagree with this reading of history, which is fine. That's not the point of this thread.

I think that the best way to argue for "Sacred Tradition" would be to give some examples of it. I would like for Catholics and/or Orthodox folks to provide some examples of Sacred Tradition. Please provide some examples of teachings which are necessary for faith and life, which have some origin in Jesus and the apostles, but which are not clearly laid out in Scripture.

Thanks in advance.

As far as I can tell, you seem to misunderstand what Orthodox believe about Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture, by the way, is PART OF sacred Tradition. Tradition (from the original) means "to hand down". It's a verb originally, not a noun. And Tradition includes that which we have received from the Apostles. Holy Scripture is not only part of that, but the central and most authoritative part, because it is written down.

But I don't understand your point that it is "not sufficient"?

In fact, perhaps only the Gospel of St. John, or even less maybe just a handful of quotes from Christ, could prove sufficient for salvation.

However on the other hand, the Church existed - full of "saved" persons - for decades without any Scripture having been written down.

So the equivalency of "Scripture" = "exact sufficiency for salvation" makes zero sense.

Only a part of Scripture can save someone. Yet many have been saved without any Scripture.

The argument/understanding makes no sense. The "sufficiency of Scripture" was something introduced many centuries later, by Protestants no doubt desiring to make unnecessary the Catholic Church. (At a time when Catholicism had made changes that needed to be opposed.)

However, Orthodoxy has no part of that. If you want to understand what we believe and why, I think a different question is needed.

Peace to you.

 

[Tree of Life]

As far as I can tell, you seem to misunderstand what Orthodox believe about Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture, by the way, is PART OF sacred Tradition. Tradition (from the original) means "to hand down". It's a verb originally, not a noun. And Tradition includes that which we have received from the Apostles. Holy Scripture is not only part of that, but the central and most authoritative part, because it is written down.

But I don't understand your point that it is "not sufficient"?

In fact, perhaps only the Gospel of St. John, or even less maybe just a handful of quotes from Christ, could prove sufficient for salvation.

However on the other hand, the Church existed - full of "saved" persons - for decades without any Scripture having been written down.

So the equivalency of "Scripture" = "exact sufficiency for salvation" makes zero sense.

Only a part of Scripture can save someone. Yet many have been saved without any Scripture.

The argument/understanding makes no sense. The "sufficiency of Scripture" was something introduced many centuries later, by Protestants no doubt desiring to make unnecessary the Catholic Church. (At a time when Catholicism had made changes that needed to be opposed.)

However, Orthodoxy has no part of that. If you want to understand what we believe and why, I think a different question is needed.

Peace to you.

Fair enough. Perhaps EO don’t deny that Scripture is sufficient. The bone I have to pick is with those who believe that additional church teachings are necessary or authoritative. If this doesn’t describe Eastern Orthodoxy, then good!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Fair enough. Perhaps EO don’t deny that Scripture is sufficient. The bone I have to pick is with those who believe that additional church teachings are necessary or authoritative. If this doesn’t describe Eastern Orthodoxy, then good!

Additional Church teachings are authoritative to us ... what has been taught and done since the beginning. Or as it is expressed sometimes, "what had been believed everywhere at all times by all people" - having been said BEFORE any Church schisms.

But what do you mean by authoritative? We accept them as true. As I suspect most Protestants do for much of it, like the first 4 Ecumenical Councils?

That doesn't mean every single point is REQUIRED for salvation. We simply don't think like that. There is never an attempt to distill "what is the minimum required for salvation" for example. God will decide in the end, after all. Rather it is all a treasury, a richness, which can benefit us on the path of salvation (which we define not only as a moment of conversion but also including our life in Christ and up to the final judgement - then we are "saved" past tense). Every part can benefit us. But if some parts are lacking, we hope that God in His mercy will work with whatever a person has to draw them to Him.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are there no examples?

 

[Tree of Life]

Additional Church teachings are authoritative to us ... what has been taught and done since the beginning. Or as it is expressed sometimes, "what had been believed everywhere at all times by all people" - having been said BEFORE any Church schisms.

My quarrel is with the word “additional”. If “additional” means how the church has taught Scripture and guarded against heresies then this is well and good. But if “additional” means authoritative doctrines which are not established by Scripture, for example - the Marian dogmas, then I think this is a problem.

But what do you mean by authoritative? We accept them as true. As I suspect most Protestants do for much of it, like the first 4 Ecumenical Councils?

By authoritative, I mean that people are obliged to believe or do them. It would be sinful to reject these beliefs or live contrary to these moral teachings. God’s word carries this authority. It is not only true, but it commands our acceptance. Human teaching can be true and not be authoritative.

I would take the work of the ecumenical councils to be authoritative because I believe they correctly apprehended the teaching of Scripture. I don’t take them as authoritative simply because they are church councils.

 

[Afra]

Are there no examples?

Here you go:

The books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Songs of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach, Isiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are the inspired word of God.

 

[Tree of Life]

Here you go:

The books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Songs of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach, Isiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are the inspired word of God.

Thanks for this example. We believe that the Scriptures themselves testify to their own inspiration and divinity. But I don’t want to get bogged down here with that debate.

Are there any doctrinal or moral examples you can think of?

 

[Afra]

Thanks for this example. We believe that the Scriptures themselves testify to their own inspiration and divinity. But I don’t want to get bogged down here with that debate.

Are there any doctrinal or moral examples you can think of?

You do not want to get bogged down with that debate? I think what you mean is that you would like to ignore anything that proves your view false.

But I will continue to play your game.

The prohibition against abortion.

The prohibition against masturbation. Your friend @Phil 1:21 in particular would like to know where the Bible prohibits it.

The doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Athanasian Creed.

Standard Christology.

The Mass. The proper form of Christian worship.

The meaning of “born of water” in John 3:5.

Please feel free to ignore those as well.

 

[Albion]

Most of those seem not to be either doctrines necessary for saving faith OR for morality issues.

 

[Tree of Life]

You do not want to get bogged down with that debate? I think what you mean is that you would like to ignore anything that proves your view false.

But I will continue to play your game.

The reason I don’t want to get bogged down in the canon debate here is that it’s going on on a few other threads currently.

The prohibition against abortion.

Bible believing Protestants agree that abortion is a sin. No extra words from God needed on this one. “Thou shalt not murder” covers it!

The prohibition against masturbation. Your friend @Phil 1:21 in particular would like to know where the Bible prohibits it.

I believe that the Bible effectively prohibits masturbation, but I must admit that this issue is less clear than others. So there must be some room for diversity of opinion here. No church has a right to take a dogmatic view.

The doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Athanasian Creed.

Protestants believe in the classic formulations of the Trinity because they are thoroughly derived from Scripture. There’s nothing in the Trinitarian formulae that is not based on Scripture and found in Scripture. No extra words from God needed here. What part of the doctrine of the Trinity do you think is not sufficiently found in Scripture?

Standard Christology.

Same as above.

The Mass. The proper form of Christian worship.

Aspects of the Roman Mass are found in Scripture. What specific elements of the mass do you think are not made clear in Scripture?

The meaning of “born of water” in John 3:5.

I think that Protestants and Catholics alike agree that this is a reference to baptism.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Please provide some examples of teachings which are necessary for faith and life, which have some origin in Jesus and the apostles, but which are not clearly laid out in Scripture.

First of all, your asking for an example of something created by someone else but then you impose boundaries in which it must conform. Two, what is considered necessary for 'faith' isn't the same unless we practice the same faith. What is not 'clear' and laid out in Scripture is an obvious problem.


Here is an example that meets your criteria. A Catholic of the Latin Rite is obligated to attend Mass every Sunday. Failing to meet that obligation is a sin.



Below is a link to the most recent example of Sacred Tradition. Your criteria isn't met by this example but then your criteria isn't reasonable nor fair, unless you deny that the Sacred Tradition of my faith is Christian. Wait, it may not be clearly laid out in scripture to you.


Documents of Vatican II

 

[Eloy Craft]

Do we except the authority of the Word of God or the traditions of men?

Do you know what traditions the Scriptures define as being from men? Who is teaching you the word with authority?

 

[Afra]

The reason I don’t want to get bogged down in the canon debate here is that it’s going on on a few other threads currently.

That, and because it clearly defeats your argument.

Must a Christian believe that the New Testament contains 27 books?

Bible believing Protestants agree that abortion is a sin. No extra words from God needed on this one. “Thou shalt not murder” covers it!

No, not all “Bible believing Protestants” believe that. And what you believe is irrelevant. You must prove it from Scripture. Prove that “murder” covers abortion, from Scripture.

I believe that the Bible effectively prohibits masturbation, but I must admit that this issue is less clear than others. So there must be some room for diversity of opinion here. No church has a right to take a dogmatic view.

Again, what you believe is irrelevant. You must prove it from Scripture. And the Church that Jesus founded most certainly has a right to take a dogmatic view on it. You have no authority to claim that another church has a right, or does not have a right to do anything. The fact of the matter is that masturbation is either sinful or it is not sinful. If it is sinful, as you believe, then you are doing Christians and the world a disservice by telling them “it’s up to you to decide for yourself whether it is sinful.” They can apply that sorry excuse of Christian morality to practically anything that they want to do. If the application of Sola Scriptura cannot tell us whether something like masturbation is sinful it is useless.

Protestants believe in the classic formulations of the Trinity because they are thoroughly derived from Scripture. There’s nothing in the Trinitarian formulae that is not based on Scripture and found in Scripture. No extra words from God needed here. What part of the doctrine of the Trinity do you think is not sufficiently found in Scripture?

The entire Athanasian creed. Prove all of it from Scripture. Put your money where your mouth is.

Same as above.

Prove it.

Aspects of the Roman Mass are found in Scripture. What specific elements of the mass do you think are not made clear in Scripture?

The theology set forth in Trent, Session 22.

I think that Protestants and Catholics alike agree that this is a reference to baptism.

No, that is false. One of the most popular Christian apologetics sites explicitly claims that it does not refer to baptism.

What does it mean to be born of water?

And many of the major Protestant denominations hold that baptism is not necessary for entry into the Kingdom of God.

 

[prodromos]

Are there no examples?

The Divine Liturgy.

 

[Afra]

Most of those seem not to be either doctrines necessary for saving faith OR for morality issues.

Well why don’t you provide us with a list of the doctrines that are necessary for a “saving faith”, since you apparently have authority to declare what is and what is not essential.

And once you do that, are you going to throw away everything else taught in Scripture? No, so your point is irrelevant.

 

[W2L]

Thanks for this example. We believe that the Scriptures themselves testify to their own inspiration and divinity.

I agree. His sheep know His voice and follow it.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I think that the best way to argue for "Sacred Tradition" would be to give some examples of it. I would like for Catholics and/or Orthodox folks to provide some examples of Sacred Tradition. Please provide some examples of teachings which are necessary for faith and life, which have some origin in Jesus and the apostles, but which are not clearly laid out in Scripture.

As someone mentioned: the holy Mass (Latin term) or the Divine Liturgy (Greek term). The seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Confession, the Eucharist, matrimony, ordination, and anointing of the sick and dying.

Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not provide us with an order of worship, what feasts to celebrate, when to celebrate them, what readings should be read, what songs and hymns should be sung. Left with the Scripture alone, you cannot make a order of worship without "making up" stuff on the way. With Scripture alone, you are left with no way of know if you worship God correctly every Sunday.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, on the other hand, have received from sacred Tradition an order of worship: how to worship, what feasts to celebrate, what readings and hymns to use, etc. Yes, it can take different form in different cultures and languages, but the core is still the same in them all.

 

[W2L]

As someone mentioned: the holy Mass (Latin term) or the Divine Liturgy (Greek term). The seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Confession, the Eucharist, matrimony, ordination, and anointing of the sick and dying.

Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not provide us with an order of worship, what feasts to celebrate, when to celebrate them, what readings should be read, what songs and hymns should be sung. Left with the Scripture alone, you cannot make a order of worship without "making up" stuff on the way. With Scripture alone, you are left with no way of know if you worship God correctly every Sunday.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, on the other hand, have received from sacred Tradition an order of worship: how to worship, what feasts to celebrate, what readings and hymns to use, etc. Yes, it can take different form in different cultures and languages, but the core is still the same in them all.

Many protestants believe that Catholicism made stuff up.