Holy Tradition and New Public Revelation

[Perceivence]

Hey guys and gals!

In another topic where the issue of the definition of Holy Tradition came up, a certain Anglican said:

Holy Tradition doesn't start with the Apostles but with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals truths not explicitly and/or implicitly found in Scripture (ie: the Blessed Trinity) to the Church in the form of either personal revelation (which must be agreed upon by the latter; God knows there've been many false prophets around) but usually through groups. The Church isn't about simple individuals (although personal revelation is entirely possible and has occurred many, many times) but the whole. The Holy Spirit reveals to the assembled through synod and council.

To this I replied:

What? Are the Anglican and Catholic definitions of Holy Tradition different? Cuz I was under the impression that Catholics think public revelation has ceased and all Holy Tradition has its origin with the Holy Spirit, yes, but as manifested in the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

New Advent on Tradition: The word tradition (Greek paradosis) in the ecclesiastical sense; which is the only one in which it is used here; refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission (kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica). [...] At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles.




And the CCC on further revelation:


66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".


​

To which he said:

Then you have much to learn then about the Vatican Catholic Church.

And as for your citations, you are obviously misinterpreting what they are saying. I would highly suggest you go to OBOB and learn what they actually believe instead of relying on what you think they believe.

After he chose not to clarify for me to save me the trip, I decided to make the long, arduous and tiring journey over to this distant and beautiful land. I've been here before and your sages are quite knowledgeable, so I'm certain that what I hear here about Catholicism will be correct.

So now I ask:

1. Am I wrong? Is he wrong? Are we both right? What's the truth?

 

[pax]

Basically we believe the deposit of faith (Scripture and Apostolic Tradition) was sealed with the death of the last apostle. Nothing can be added or changed. It is up to the Church to give an authoritative interpretation about what has always been taught. Any private apparition cannot change the deposit of faith.

 

[tdcharles]

Tradition, oral teachings which the Apostles passed onto subsequent Bishops, have not changed, nor can they change. Neither can it be added onto. Our understanding of them can change however, as your Catechism quotation indicates. Councils can only elaborate on what already exists, they can't create things out of the blue. Infallibility, which is what the Councils are when they deal with faith and morals, is free from error, not direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as the writers of the New Testament were).

The Church is very clear that no new prophecy or revelations are to be expected. In the words of St. John of the Cross: The Word became flesh, the Word spoke, and the Word has no occassion to speak further. Regarding personal (private) revelation, it's never added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Tradition), even if it is deemed authentic.

 

[ps139]

Hmmm... I know the answer but can't for the life of me figure out how to explain it

 

[plainswolf]

Nothing new can be added to the Divine Deposit of Faith. St. Thomas Aquinas points out in the second of the second part of the Summa Theologica, question 174 Art. 6 "God sends prophets to every generation, not to give a new doctrine but to remind the faithful what they must do to save their souls."

J.M.J.
Mark

 

[Carrye]

Nothing new can be added to the Divine Deposit of Faith. St. Thomas Aquinas points out in the second of the second part of the Summa Theologica, question 174 Art. 6 "God sends prophets to every generation, not to give a new doctrine but to remind the faithful what they must do to save their souls."

Great quote by St. Thomas, Mark! That's really the essence of it.

 

[ThereseOfLisieux]

Well, I think everyone else said it all. I think you did your homework well, thank you for searching out the truth about Catholicism. If you have any further questions about this or other topics please feel free to ask. We love to answer questions from sincerely interested people.

 

[Rising_Suns]

I'm not quite sure I understand his first comment, or where the difference of opinion is. From what I can read, he seems to be blurring the lines of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, but his comments are so ambiguous its hard to make anything of what he's asserting. Could you please clarify this? Thank you.

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[King of the Nations]

I'm not quite sure I understand his first comment, or where the difference of opinion is. From what I can read, he seems to be blurring the lines of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, but his comments are so ambiguous its hard to make anything of what he's asserting. Could you please clarify this? Thank you.

Blessings,

-Davide

Yeah, I have to admit that I am failing to see the distinction between the two views myself, running off of current wording.

Perceivence, could you tell us what the disagreement is exactly? Could you spell out the difference as you see it in explicit terms?

Peace,

Greg

 

[Perceivence]

Thanks for the replies so far guys!

I'm not quite sure I understand his first comment, or where the difference of opinion is. From what I can read, he seems to be blurring the lines of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, but his comments are so ambiguous its hard to make anything of what he's asserting. Could you please clarify this? Thank you.

Blessings,

-Davide

Okay, lemme try. He asked me to define Holy Tradition. The first quote I have of his here is in response to my attempt at a definition, which was:

"Holy Tradition" refers to the formal doctrine and dogma that the Apostles held and taught that were passed down through time through their successors.

He was not forthcoming with his interpretation of the CCC section I cited, New Advent's definition of Holy Tradition, or what he thinks it is beyond the quotes I showed you, for that matter. But from what I've gathered, he thinks that the content of Holy Tradition can be increased through the subsequent revelation of new truths. I was saying that the content of Holy Tradition is the same today as it was in the time of the, because it is the dogma and doctrine of the Apostles and Christ past through the generations.

Does that help?

 

[King of the Nations]

Thanks for the replies so far guys!



Okay, lemme try. He asked me to define Holy Tradition. The first quote I have of his here is in response to my attempt at a definition, which was:

"Holy Tradition" refers to the formal doctrine and dogma that the Apostles held and taught that were passed down through time through their successors.

He was not forthcoming with his interpretation of the CCC section I cited, New Advent's definition of Holy Tradition, or what he thinks it is beyond the quotes I showed you, for that matter. But from what I've gathered, he thinks that the content of Holy Tradition can be increased through the subsequent revelation of new truths. I was saying that the content of Holy Tradition is the same today as it was in the time of the, because it is the dogma and doctrine of the Apostles and Christ past through the generations.

Does that help?

Ok. Yes, I think so. (Pardon if this has already been said in this thread, but running on limted time, no time to check...)

The content of Tradition cannot be increased, as public revelation ceased with the apostles and Jesus.

However, what does increase over time is the Church's understanding of what's already there. One perfect example is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Church's creed and formal definition of the Trinity didn't exist until about 300 years after Christ ascended. When, for example, the Nicene Creed was written, it wasn't as if the truths therein were completely new. It was simply that, over the course of about three centuries, the Church's understanding of the Trinity developed to where they could put it in the formal creed that they did. Same with all other dogma.

To the "untrained" eye, when the Church comes along and makes a "new" formal pronouncement on some dogma, it looks to some as if something totally new is being added to the faith, when, in fact, the content of that thing is "age-old", it's just our understanding of certain details that is new.

Make sense?

Peace,

Greg