Examples of Sacred Tradition

[Tree of Life]

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

I think that the Scriptures sufficiently teach that Christians are commanded to gather for worship on the Lord’s day.

 

[W2L]

I think that the Scriptures sufficiently teach that Christians are commanded to gather for worship on the Lord’s day.

Actually the church met daily, not just on one day of the week, and no where are we commanded to assemble on one particular day of the week. This is actually a flawed tradition that is not biblical.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I think the problem with the RCC (and maybe the EO) is that they are accustomed to appealing to "the Church" for their defence of doctrine rather than the Scriptures. Not realizing that they are doing the same thing that the Pharisees did (appeal to tradition) and for which Jesus strongly rebuked them.

But Christ said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2-3). So the Pharisees and the Elders did have some authority over the Jews which even Christ acknowledge. The sin of the Pharisees was not that they appealed to tradition per se, but that they had their own man-made traditions which contradicted the Law of God.

 

[W2L]

But Christ said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2-3). So the Pharisees and the Elders did have some authority over the Jews which even Christ acknowledge. The sin of the Pharisees was not that they appealed to tradition per se, but that they had their own man-made traditions which contradicted the Law of God.

Appealing to the church, instead of scripture, is wrong. Thats backwards.

 

[Tree of Life]

That, and because it clearly defeats your argument.

I don't think it does. Feel free to discuss this issue with me here - How Do We Know What Books Are In The Bible?

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.

If a Protestant - or a Catholic - believes that abortion is permissible then they have ceased to believe the Scriptures.

We've seen from Jesus that the murder command does not forbid the act of murder alone. It also forbids everything that tends toward murder. Jesus taught that the murder command also forbid abusive language, anger, and unresolved conflict (Matthew 5:21-26).

Murder includes all of this, but is penultimately expressed in the unjust taking of human life. Applying this command to the situation of abortion, it's clear to see that abortion is wrong. A fetus is a human life. Aborting a fetus results in the death of the fetus. The fetus does not deserve to die. Therefore "thou shalt not murder" also means "thou shalt not have an abortion". If you need an authoritative church to make that connection for you then you simply don't know how to read the Bible and apply it to your life.

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.

If this is so, then neither do you have any authority to claim that any church does have a right to make such dogmatic claims.

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

Someone has done my work for me here - Assessment of the Athanasian Creed

Prove it.

Westminster Confession of Faith 8.2 has done this with Scripture references - Westminster Confession of Faith

The theology set forth in Trent, Session 22.

Could you clarify what exactly is here that you think is not clearly laid out in Scripture?

 

[Tree of Life]

The Divine Liturgy.

This has come up a few times. What we ought to do in Christian worship seems plain enough to me in Scripture. What part of Catholic/Orthodox worship do you think is not made clear in Scripture and requires additional words from God?

 

[Tree of Life]

As someone mentioned: the holy Mass (Latin term) or the Divine Liturgy (Greek term).

I'd like more clarity on what is meant here. I think that what we ought to do in Christian worship is fairly clear in Scripture. What parts of Catholic worship do you think are not clearly laid out in Scripture?

The seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Confession, the Eucharist, matrimony, ordination, and anointing of the sick and dying.

I agree that the Bible only recognizes two sacraments. But this is why I think that there are only two sacraments. Why should I accept the other five, since they are not clearly made sacraments in Scripture?

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.

I think we have enough to go on. The Bible tells us that we ought to meet on the Lord's day for public worship. But it does not tell us at what hour to meet or for how long we should meet. These latter issues are left to human wisdom and discretion. We don't need any authoritative words from God concerning how long worship should be.

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.

They certainly have a tradition with these matters, but I see no reason to accept it as authoritative for everyone.

 

[Tree of Life]

Nonsense.

More nonsense. You really need to spend some time studying what the Catholic Church really teaches, because you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Your Catholic brethren don't seem to have any issues with how I've formulated their position. Maybe you're not very familiar with your church's own positions? Could you spell out where I've made a mistake?

 

[Micah888]

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.

That exercise would be self-defeating, would it not? If the teachings have some origin in Christ and the apostles, then they simply reinforce what is revealed in Scripture. But if they have no connection to Bible truth, or origin in Scripture, they would simply be extra-biblical man-made ideas.

 

[Tree of Life]

For the first several hundred years of the Catholic Church's existence the Bible did't even exist, because the Church had not yet compiled it.

The first century church had the 66 books of the Old Testament. They also had Paul's letters and the evangelists' gospels. They didn't have exactly what we have in our hands today, but they certainly had Bibles. What do you think that Jesus and Paul taught from when they taught in the synagogues?

The Bible is a product of the true Church. The Church is not a product of the Bible.

It's the position of historic, Christian orthodoxy that the Bible is from God, not from men. God used men to write Scripture, but God is the author of Scripture. This is, at least, what Jesus believed about the Bible - Jesus' View of Scripture

 

[Micah888]

Below is a link to the most recent example of Sacred Tradition. ... Documents of Vatican II

So I went to this link and discovered Nostra Aetate (In Our Time). And here is an excellent example of false teaching pretending to be truth.

3. The Church [the RCC] regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth...Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet... Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Anyone who has read the Koran knows that this is utter nonsense. Allah cannot possibly be the same as the one true and living God -- FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT. Indeed the doctrine of the Trinity (triune Godhead) is savagely attacked in the Koran.

Also, the Koran "reveres" Jesus to the point that He is A LESSER PROPHET than Mohammad. And His deity is also savagely attacked in the Koran.

And guess who constructed the idolatrous Kaaba in Mecca? Abraham and Ishmael according to the Koran! But the Bible says that God is the God of Abraham, ISAAC, and Jacob.

 

[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.

You two pretty much validated my entry. I'll take that as a win. Besides you didn't address that it's a sin. That's not clearly laid out in scripture.

Just wondering you are bible only how can something not be clearly laid out in scripture and have some origin in Jesus and the apostles? Kind of a fine line you've drawn. Especially since it's examples of Tradition you want to deny....er I mean judge....err I mean what is the purpose here? Go look'm up yourself. You guys have demonstrated to me this isn't going to be fair anyway.

I think that the Scriptures sufficiently teach that Christians are commanded to gather for worship on the Lord’s day.

Not according to W2L what about it being a sin?

Actually the church met daily, not just on one day of the week, and no where are we commanded to assemble on one particular day of the week. This is actually a flawed tradition that is not biblical.

not according to Tree of Life

 

[HatGuy]

For the first several hundred years of the Catholic Church's existence the Bible did't even exist, because the Church had not yet compiled it. Yet the Church was able to be unified in what they believed, because Jesus Christ had promised its leaders, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". That first Church would still be united in the fullness of truth today even if it had never decided to gather some of its early writings into a book. The Bible is a product of the true Church. The Church is not a product of the Bible. And that fact is clearly demonstrated by doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. A Church that has no true teaching authority, and desperately tries to make something else its course of authority, is doomed to division and false teaching, and that is exactly what we see among the unauthorized manmade churches that have separated from the one Church Jesus founded for them. Thousands of conflicting denominations, each teaching something different, yet each claiming to be teaching the truth because they got those teachings "right out of the Bible". No, they got those teachings from their own unauthoritative personal interpretations of the Bible. In the meantime, the one Church Jesus founded remains one in authority, one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.

Actually, that early church was not that unified.

Look at the issues Paul and Peter and John had to deal with in the scriptures. People were saying, "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos". They had to write the epistles to sort out issues when people and churches were literally following other teachings.

Even Paul and Peter had a bit of a disagreement. And the Gentile thing was hard for the Jewish Christians.

And those first few 100 years are full of disunity. Just check the history books.

I think a lot of us have to shed our idealistic view of the church past and present. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, but there is no one unified church (nor do I think there will ever be).

 

[Tree of Life]

You two pretty much validated my entry. I'll take that as a win. Besides you didn't address that it's a sin. That's not clearly laid out in scripture.

I do think it's clearly laid out in Scripture. "Honor the Sabbath" means that we should worship God once per week all the day. The Christian day of worship in the NT is Sunday - the Lord's Day. Reformed and Catholics agree on this.

W2L and I are obviously coming from different "traditions". I don't think he's even part of a church, which is a red flag. But, sure, Protestants disagree.

Just wondering you are bible only how can something not be clearly laid out in scripture and have some origin in Jesus and the apostles? Kind of a fine line you've drawn. Especially since it's examples of Tradition you want to deny....er I mean judge....err I mean what is the purpose here? Go look'm up yourself. You guys have demonstrated to me this is going to be fair anyway.

I don't think that there is such a thing as "Sacred Tradition". I think that there's Apostolic Teaching and Tradition which is contained in the New Testament and is infallible. I think that there's human traditions which are not necessarily bad, but they are not infallible. There's no infallible church tradition which is not clearly laid out in Scripture. Catholics claim that there is.

 

[HatGuy]

As a non-catholic I must admit, that when I'm studying a particular doctrine I always go and see what the Catholic church has to say about it, and I'll very often find it Biblically sound and really deeply thought out and reasoned.

I'll also try and find out what the EO teaches.

There are very few things I disagree with Catholics on. Granted, those things I disagree on are the big ones, but I have HUGE respect for Sacred Tradition and think that Christian tradition must always be included in helping you make your mind up on a doctrine.

I like Wesley's quadrilateral. Scripture, reason, tradition, experience, with a primacy on scripture.

I also do subscribe to "Reformed and always reforming", because "reforming" is not about "progressing" but about "going back" to the original.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I do think it's clearly laid out in Scripture. "Honor the Sabbath" means that we should worship God once per week all the day. The Christian day of worship in the NT is Sunday - the Lord's Day. Reformed and Catholics agree on this.

W2L and I are obviously coming from different "traditions". I don't think he's even part of a church, which is a red flag. But, sure, Protestants disagree.



I don't think that there is such a thing as "Sacred Tradition". I think that there's Apostolic Teaching and Tradition which is contained in the New Testament and is infallible. I think that there's human traditions which are not necessarily bad, but they are not infallible. There's no infallible church tradition which is not clearly laid out in Scripture. Catholics claim that there is.

The rules set up anyone who participates for failure. And you keep missing that it's a sin to miss Church. on Sunday. Tree that was just a minor disagreement with W2L. I waqs making as big a deal as possible just for sport.

 

[Tree of Life]

The rules set up anyone who participates for failure. And you keep missing that it's a sin to miss Church. on Sunday. Tree that was just a minor disagreement with W2L. I waqs making as big a deal as possible just for sport.

I agree with you that it's a sin to miss church on Sunday. What am I missing?

 

[chilehed]

Could you spell out where I've made a mistake?

I already did: the Church does not teach what you claim it does, there isn't a single authoritative source that supports your claim, and in fact the Church teaches the opposite of what you said.

If you're interested in the truth you can study the Catechism, which I linked in my previous post.

 

[Tree of Life]

I already did.

If you're interested in the truth you can study the Catechism.

Thanks for the contribution.

 

[Not David]

I found a couple of passages referring to worshiping on the first day of the week: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together ato break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight". (Acts 20:7), and "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:2).