Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[xapis]

Tradition wasn't declared equal to the Scriptures by the RCC until the Council of Trent in the 16th century... interestingly, that declaration is newer than Protestantism.

My question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

 

[Nazaroo]

The problem of the Bible versus 'tradition' can be viewed as a kind of 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg' problem.

When Protestants began speaking of 'Sola Scriptura' (Bible only) as a rule for doctrine and conduct, they perhaps did not immediately perceive the problems that would inevitably come after such a position was proposed. Nor were (Roman) Catholics initially prepared to properly refute Protestant excesses, anymore than Protestants were able to effectively combat Roman Catholic errors.

All these problems came historically in a certain order, and probably could only be dealt with one at a time.

Thus the tampering and eventual rejection of the Septuagint (Greek O.T.) by the non-converting Jewish authorities led the Christians to preserve and define their own Old Testament canon and text.

And the rejection of most of the New Testament by Marcion forced Christians to think and act more carefully about the Canon and text of the New Testament.

The corruption of the church in the Middle Ages (admitted by Catholic scholars) again led to a grassroots reaction by Christians, yet in each of these cases, ideas were first proposed in primitive forms, and not only details had to be practically worked out, but new problems had to be solved, and wild notions tamed by reason and experience.

So also with the idea of 'Scripture Only' as a guide. Some of the problems immediately arising were,

Which Scripture is really Scripture?

Luther reopened the question of the Canon of the O.T., and instead adopted the Canon of the Medieval Jews who had rejected the Messiah and His Holy Scripture as the Church had understood it for 1400 years.

Other protestants rejected letters from the New Testament formerly respected, such as Clement, and scholars began to question the authorship of some of Paul's letters.

In the end, there has still remained fundamental differences regarding the Canon of both Old and New Testaments between the four largest groups of believers, namely Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant,and Jew.

The text of the New Testament has also come under question as manuscripts began to be collected and compared for the purpose of printing a definitive text of both the original Greek and Hebrew.

Finally, the translation, both the general style and specific methodology of translation, as well as the necessary research and reference material has had to be painstakingly gathered, such as Hebrew and Greek grammars and dictionaries, and studies of the vocabulary and style of these languages throughout the history of their usage.

The question of doctrinal and theological bias in both translation and interpretation has also been raised by the very act of Protestants from the Reformation insisting upon going back to the text of the scriptures for all matters of doctrine and behaviour.

In the end, 'Sola Scriptura' has turned out to be a far more complicated proposition than the Protestants ever dreamed. And Protestant scholars are now among the first to insist upon long and careful study of all these matters.

As it turns out, many suspicions and skeptical attacks upon the bible have been proven to be unfounded by careful analysis, historical research, and Archaeology. But many other questions either remain, or have become even more acute problems.

This is why the Reformation could not be accomplished in 'a week', nor could all the problems or errors of Christians and the church be repaired so easily. In fact, the Reformation is just one small part of a long ongoing process prophesied long ago, that in the Endtimes, knowledge would be greatly increased, and yet paradoxically, so would confusion and apostacy.

Christians have to carefully examine what is 'sure' in our faith and doctrine, and defend it, while acknowledging humbly those parts of our knowledge and wisdom in which we 'see darkly' or lack true understanding.

 

[stdaggett]

Tradition wasn't declared equal to the Scriptures by the RCC until the Council of Trent in the 16th century... interestingly, that declaration is newer than Protestantism.

My question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

Where did you hear that? Can you quote that for certain? Have you ever looked at Denzinger's "Sources of Catholic Doctrine"? My friend, you are sorely mistaken. Study to show thyself informed and then approved by even your intellectual foes.
Thanks.
St. Daggett

 

[xapis]

Good post, Naz... but it doesn't really get to the point of the question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

 

[stray bullet]

Tradition wasn't declared equal to the Scriptures by the RCC until the Council of Trent in the 16th century... interestingly, that declaration is newer than Protestantism.

My question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

I'm impressed by your use of the word 'declare', was this deliberate? Surely anyone with knowledge of the Church, recognizes the difference between Traditional and Doctrine... Doctrine being that which is declared.

The word, which I believe you have deliberately avoided, is 'believed'. The Catholic Church has always believed that Tradition is equal to scripture. It wasn't declared a Doctrine until the Reformation when fallible men declared unscriptural theologies like 'sola scriptura'.. at which point it was necessary to declare the Tradition that Tradition is co-equal to Scripture, a Doctrine.

The Catholic Church, just as the Orthodox and Coptic churches... believes that Tradition is inspired by God and thus, equal in authority to Scripture.

 

[stray bullet]

Good post, Naz... but it doesn't really get to the point of the question: What led to the Catholic Church's decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

Doctrine generally follows Tradition being brought into question. Such issues require the declaration of inspired truths- just as Peter first declared Jesus was Christ, the Son of the Living God.. when many followers were confused about who Jesus was.

 

[xapis]

Where did you hear that? Can you quote that for certain? Have you ever looked at Denzinger's "Sources of Catholic Doctrine"? My friend, you are sorely mistaken. Study to show thyself informed and then approved by even your intellectual foes.
Thanks.
St. Daggett

Here's one quote:

After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, two decrees were ready for debate at the fourth session (8 April, 1546), and were adopted by the fathers. In treating the canon of Scripture they declare at the same time that in matters of faith and morals the tradition of the Church is, together with the Bible, the standard of supernatural revelation; then taking up the text and the use of the sacred Books they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations.

SOURCE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

 

[CaDan]

Good post, Naz... but it doesn't really get to the point of the question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

I think the second paragraph of Naz's post addresses this directly.

 

[stdaggett]

So is your point not that this was a new doctrine that came out of Trent? I thought it was what you were driving at. I also did not take you to be using the term declare in the technical sense. If you were, then my apologies. But then, what is your point? If you were being technical in your usage of terms, it undercuts your somewhat snide comment about it coming after the Reformation (I call it a Revolution- a liturgical revolution) and being therefore newer. Can you clarify?

 

[Nazaroo]

I think the second paragraph of Naz's post addresses this directly.

Thanks! I often wonder if people really read my posts carefully.

 

[prodromos]

I don't believe the Orthodox Church has ever made any declaration that Tradition is equal to Scripture, and it would not make any sense for her to do so since we believe that Scripture and Tradition are inseperable. So I think any arguments regarding what the Catholic Church may have declared at some point in time are moot seeing as the Orthodox Church has always believed the same without having made any such declarations.

John

 

[xapis]

So is your point not that this was a new doctrine that came out of Trent? I thought it was what you were driving at. I also did not take you to be using the term declare in the technical sense. If you were, then my apologies.

"Declare" in the technical sense, yes... what's interesting to me is that the RCC felt so compelled to come back with such "counter-reformational" declarations. If Luther was right about a lot of what he wrote in the 95 theses (and millions of Christians believe he was), it seems to me the RCC government was too angry with him and too bent on shutting him up to concede that they were wrong in some of their doctrines and traditions.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Thanks! I often wonder if people really read my posts carefully.

I found your post on this thread to be well grounded in history and insightful as to the problems posed by sola scriptura. Such posts are worthy of a careful read. Thanks
James

 

[ETide]

Is tradition living, is it powerful, is it sharper than any two-edged sword to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of the joints and marrow.. can it discern the thoughts and intents of the heart..?

Is tradition spiritually discerned.. ?

Can it wash the believer who is a member of the body of Christ..?

Is tradition a lamp unto my feet..

Is all tradition pure.. tried in a furnace of fire, seven times..

Can tradition be used for doctrine, for reproof.. for instruction in righteousness.. can it equip the man of God unto all good works..?

 

[Orthosdoxa]

Is tradition living, is it powerful, is it sharper than any two-edged sword to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of the joints and marrow.. can it discern the thoughts and intents of the heart..?

Is tradition spiritually discerned.. ?

Can it wash the believer who is a member of the body of Christ..?

Is tradition a lamp unto my feet..

Is all tradition pure.. tried in a furnace of fire, seven times..

Can tradition be used for doctrine, for reproof.. for instruction in righteousness.. can it equip the man of God unto all good works..?

Yes, because Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition. To separate them and pit them against each other creates a false dichotomy.

LK

 

[Asinner]

Is tradition living, is it powerful, is it sharper than any two-edged sword to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of the joints and marrow.. can it discern the thoughts and intents of the heart..?

Is tradition spiritually discerned.. ?

Can it wash the believer who is a member of the body of Christ..?

Is tradition a lamp unto my feet..

Is all tradition pure.. tried in a furnace of fire, seven times..

Can tradition be used for doctrine, for reproof.. for instruction in righteousness.. can it equip the man of God unto all good works..?

The Word of God transcends scripture. You cannot contain God in written words. He was in the beginning, He was with God, He is God. The truth of Him is everywhere and fills all things; therefore, that which was taught and spoken by Christ, yet not put to paper, is still His Word. Is His Word not also written upon our hearts? His Word lives in us today and has been kept alive for 2000 years, living in those who came before us. Gal 2:20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

God Bless

 

[a_ntv]

"Declare" in the technical sense, yes... what's interesting to me is that the RCC felt so compelled to come back with such "counter-reformational" declarations. .

Please dont call our Church RCC: RCC is not our name. You are kindly requested to call any denomination with his own name, not with nicknames given by others. Ad instance Im 100% catholic but not Roman in rite.

CC dont like to define doctrines.
CC defines doctrines ONLY for teaching purposes.
When the right doctrine was attacked, ad instance by Mr Luther, the Church had to write down something of very clear and easy to help people to understand the position of the Holy Tradition.
The Council of Trend did NOT invented any doctrine, but simply expresses the old traditional doctrine with a new language. The language can change, the doctrine not.

"it seems to me the RCC government was too angry with him and too bent on shutting him up to concede that they were wrong in some of their doctrines and traditions.

The Council of Trent changed lots of practices in catholicism. And in a very hard way....

It was not a "counter-reform", but it was a "catholic reform" that started very before the Mr Luther's theses

 

[ETide]

Yes, because Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition. To separate them and pit them against each other creates a false dichotomy.LK

Here's what the LORD has to say on the matter.. it's an example that still speaks volumes to this day..

And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[cathmomof3]

Here's what the LORD has to say on the matter.. it's an example that still speaks volumes to this day..

And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

He was referring to the traditions of the Jews. Not the Traditions from the apostles. There is a huge difference.

 

[ETide]

The Word of God transcends scripture. You cannot contain God in written words.

Isn't it ironic.. what we do have in the word of God, as contained within the scriptures.. that it can not be exhausted.. that it is living and powerful.. that it truly lives and abides for ever..

Is your tradition up to par with that..?

For the record.. What are your traditions..?