Holy Tradition. Please define it.

[Albion]

I rather like Chesterton's explanation that Tradition is the democracy of the dead.

What'd he have to say about vote fraud?

 

[Albion]

The 'their' that I was referring to was those that use sola scripture as their standard for defining their religious practices and beliefs.

Let me see how that works. You say you were referring to those who "use 'sola scripture' as their standard...when you described them as follows: "It's their decision based off of a belief that that's how the Apostles originally intended, taught and practiced Christianity and how the Apostles would or wanted it passed down (Holy Tradition)."

That makes no sense at all to me (to describe the Sola Scriptura people as being the Holy Tradition people).

 

[Tigger45]

Let me see how that works. You say you were referring to those who "use 'sola scripture' as their standard...when you described them as follows: "It's their decision based off of a belief that that's how the Apostles originally intended, taught and practiced Christianity and how the Apostles would or wanted it passed down (Holy Tradition)."

That makes no sense at all to me (to describe the Sola Scriptura people as being the Holy Tradition people).

No, Sola Scriptura is part of the Holy Tradition of that people.

Don't know how to say it any simpler than that.

And yes I know we are using the meaning of 'Holy Tradition' differently which I explained in my earlier post showing my scripture reference of 2Thessalonians 2:14-16.

Besides the fact that we disagree on this topic I'm beginning to think it's becoming unfruitful.

 

[Albion]

No, Sola Scriptura is part of the Holy Tradition of that people.

It may be traditional of Protestants to believe in Sola Scriptura, but that doesn't make tradition (or Holy Tradition) what determines that doctrine. That's the difference people just don't get and, I suppose, because the word has several different meanings.

Don't know how to say it any simpler than that.

I understand now what you were getting at. Hopefully, you also know why it didn't sound right to me.

And even if you think that to believe in the Bible's unique authority is tantamount to believing in Tradition, what was all that stuff about "how the Apostles originally intended, taught and practiced Christianity and how the Apostles would or wanted it passed down (Holy Tradition)?" None of that describes the Sola Scriptura Christian.

And yes I know we are using the meaning of 'Holy Tradition' differently

Wow. Well, new ways of looking at and old problem are great but , in this thread, we've been asked to explain what Holy Tradition means.

 

[Rick Otto]

I rather like Chesterton's explanation that Tradition is the democracy of the dead.

It has poetic punch!

 

[Erose]

I rather like Chesterton's explanation that Tradition is the democracy of the dead.

Interesting quote MKJ. Chesterton has some great one liners. Do you remember what book that this came from. I read a couple of his books, but don't remember this explanation.

I do find it interesting though that those who have commented on this explanation got Chesterton's point completely backwards.

 

[MKJ]

Interesting quote MKJ. Chesterton has some great one liners. Do you remember what book that this came from. I read a couple of his books, but don't remember this explanation.

I do find it interesting though that those who have commented on this explanation got Chesterton's point completely backwards.

It's from Orthodoxy, which is probably the most important book to read if you are interested in his ideas.

It isn't really a one-liner though - the full quote is:

But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

I have first to say, therefore, that if I have had a bias, it was always a bias in favour of democracy, and therefore of tradition. Before we come to any theoretic or logical beginnings I am content to allow for that personal equation; I have always been more inclined to believe the ruck of hard-working people than to believe that special and troublesome literary class to which I belong. I prefer even the fancies and prejudices of the people who see life from the inside to the clearest demonstrations of the people who see life from the outside. I would always trust the old wives' fables against the old maids' facts. As long as wit is mother wit it can be as wild as it pleases.

Now - all this being said, I think that he makes an error, because the existence of the strong understanding of the papacy in Catholicism is also a kind of aristocracy against the democracy of the Church that ought properly to be found in Tradition.

 

[Erose]

It's from Orthodoxy, which is probably the most important book to read if you are interested in his ideas.

It isn't really a one-liner though - the full quote is:

But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

I have first to say, therefore, that if I have had a bias, it was always a bias in favour of democracy, and therefore of tradition. Before we come to any theoretic or logical beginnings I am content to allow for that personal equation; I have always been more inclined to believe the ruck of hard-working people than to believe that special and troublesome literary class to which I belong. I prefer even the fancies and prejudices of the people who see life from the inside to the clearest demonstrations of the people who see life from the outside. I would always trust the old wives' fables against the old maids' facts. As long as wit is mother wit it can be as wild as it pleases.

Now - all this being said, I think that he makes an error, because the existence of the strong understanding of the papacy in Catholicism is also a kind of aristocracy against the democracy of the Church that ought properly to be found in Tradition.

I now remember that passage. It's been some time since I read that book though.

Concerning your point I think when you look at the definition of democracy, i.e. Majority rules; his point makes perfect sense, in that those who have gone before are the majority, thus they rule. And so the modern generation (minority) cannot alter that which the majority (the dead). Or that is how I interpret his point.

I agree with one point though the Church is not a democracy, and never has been. It is a monarchy and always will be. Thank God we have only one king, and His law will always be what it has always been.

 

[MKJ]

I now remember that passage. It's been some time since I read that book though.

Concerning your point I think when you look at the definition of democracy, i.e. Majority rules; his point makes perfect sense, in that those who have gone before are the majority, thus they rule. And so the modern generation (minority) cannot alter that which the majority (the dead). Or that is how I interpret his point.

Well, I don't know that I would make the assumption that the dead always constitute the majority. Strictly speaking, it could be the not-yet-born that do. But the analogy perhaps begins to break down at a certain point. The main thing is that we are not meant to imagine that whatever theological views are popular right now are the only consideration, as if the Church was only an organization that exists at one point in time. Rather, it is an organization that exists in the past and in the future as well, it has an eternal quality, and we mustn't fall prey to the myth of eternal progress. Men who lived a century ago were not more stupid, and what's more they have different blind spots than we do, and we are to give their views real weight.

I agree with one point though the Church is not a democracy, and never has been. It is a monarchy and always will be. Thank God we have only one king, and His law will always be what it has always been.

Well, I don't think I agree with your historical interpretation there - I don't think it is supportable. The Church did operate in a really conciliar fashion, and with real power belonging not only to bishops but the laity, who were quite prepared to run bishops out of town if required. It was the increase of monarchical power that began to destroy that system and caused the schism and reformation, rather than taking an appropriate conciliar response. The monarchical view allows for the imposition of the right-now with issues like, say, the Creed.

 

[Albion]

Well, I don't think I agree with your historical interpretation there - I don't think it is supportable. The Church did operate in a really conciliar fashion, and with real power belonging not only to bishops but the laity, who were quite prepared to run bishops out of town if required. It was the increase of monarchical power that began to destroy that system and caused the schism and reformation, rather than taking an appropriate conciliar response. The monarchical view allows for the imposition of the right-now with issues like, say, the Creed.

Very true. Historically speaking, it is impossible to make a case for the church being some sort of monarchy until well into the Middle Ages at the least. And that's to speak only of the Western church.

 

[MKJ]

Very true. Historically speaking, it is impossible to make a case for the church being some sort of monarchy until well into the Middle Ages at the least. And that's to speak only of the Western church.

I think it is important to note that even Catholic scholars don't claim that it was. They would of course generally say that the development that happened is a justified and appropriate one based on the circumstances, which is a more nuanced discussion. Though there have been statements saying clearly that reunion with the East would likely mean a return to an older approach and that such a return would be appropriate too.

I wold actually tend to say that Tradition says that the medieval movement of the papacy was a violation of Tradition, and that Tradition pretty clearly tried to nip it in the bud, and that Tradition is the justification for whatever schism we have today.

 

[Albion]

I think it is important to note that even Catholic scholars don't claim that it was.

Yes, that probably is important to add. A real scholar, regardless of denomination, couldn't falsify the facts of history that egregiously.

 

[Hieros Gamos]

If not one single protestant in 400 years has ever disputed the five solas, to call them anything other than a tradition that is followed is disingenuous.

 

[Albion]

If not one single protestant in 400 years has ever disputed the five solas, to call them anything other than a tradition that is followed is disingenuous.

For the umpteenth time, let's explain it for you and, hopefully, show you your error.

Yes, people can revere traditions. They might even hold to certainly beliefs because they respect the opinions of their forefathers, their culture, or even their church.

BUT "Holy Tradition" is a theological term. It does not mean that there's just something being done that's traditional. Lighting candles in church is a tradition. Painting the front door of a church red is a tradition.

DO EITHER OF THOSE DEFINE A DOCTRINE FOR YOU?

Quite obviously, I'd say, the answer is "no."

And that's the point you missed. "Holy Tradition" is the term that has been given, rightly or wrongly, to a method by which doctrine is defined. We Protestants do not define doctrine that way. We use the Bible.

Any questions?

 

[Hieros Gamos]

DO EITHER OF THOSE DEFINE A DOCTRINE FOR YOU?

So the solas are kind of like preferring blue over red then?

 

[Hieros Gamos]

If it is simply not possible for a Protestant exegete to "use the Bible" without utilising the solas, to describe that tradition of use as something other than "holy" is disingenuous.

 

[Hieros Gamos]

It's like you're trying to iconoclize even your method of interpreting Scripture.

 

[Hieros Gamos]

If it is simply not possible for a Protestant exegete to "use the Bible" without utilising the solas, to describe that tradition of use as something other than "holy" is disingenuous.

Unless of course under the Protestant tent interpretation of Scripture is not holy.

 

[Albion]

If it is simply not possible for a Protestant exegete to "use the Bible" without utilising the solas, to describe that tradition of use as something other than "holy" is disingenuous.

You may keep saying that and refusing to understand, but you're still wrong.

"Holy Tradition" is not tradition.

It's a name given to a method by which the various Catholic churches determine and define doctrine. You are trying to say that if Protestants give assent to Biblical teaching--and have done so consistently for a long time--they are doing so in the same way as Catholics create doctrine from an alleged "consensus of historic opinion."

We don't do that. The two methods are different. How you could call "We don't do that (and never have)" disingenuous seems to me to be, well, disingenuous.

 

[Erose]

Well, I don't know that I would make the assumption that the dead always constitute the majority. Strictly speaking, it could be the not-yet-born that do. But the analogy perhaps begins to break down at a certain point. The main thing is that we are not meant to imagine that whatever theological views are popular right now are the only consideration, as if the Church was only an organization that exists at one point in time. Rather, it is an organization that exists in the past and in the future as well, it has an eternal quality, and we mustn't fall prey to the myth of eternal progress. Men who lived a century ago were not more stupid, and what's more they have different blind spots than we do, and we are to give their views real weight.

Very good points.

Well, I don't think I agree with your historical interpretation there - I don't think it is supportable. The Church did operate in a really conciliar fashion, and with real power belonging not only to bishops but the laity, who were quite prepared to run bishops out of town if required. It was the increase of monarchical power that began to destroy that system and caused the schism and reformation, rather than taking an appropriate conciliar response. The monarchical view allows for the imposition of the right-now with issues like, say, the Creed.

The king I am referring to is Jesus. The Church is the kingdom of Christ, thus it is truly a monarchy. The method of by which that monarchy has operated on earth has gone through some changes over the centuries no doubt; but is has always been and will always be a monarchy. The pope and the rest of the bishops are stewards of the kingdom. But there has never been in the history of the church any form of democracy, when it comes to doctrine; there has been times when the laity had the ability to select their own bishops, but even then the bishop selected had to be approved by the local synod of bishops, or the Patriarch over that area. But historically this process didn't last very long, and was condemned at one of the early councils, I'm thinking Nicea, but I could be wrong.