Holy Tradition. Please define it.

[Standing Up]

the fact that you believe a collection of books contains the word of God, and you are fairly confident you who the specific collection of books that have this, shows that you believe in some form of Tradition and you view it as authoritative

Except then we'd have four Holy Traditions because OO, RC, EO, P all have a different collection.

I'll go with Athanasius: they were handed down as divine and the minimalist 66 books for unity amongst us. The alternative, Tradition, simply doesn't take us where I hope we all want to go.

 

[Albion]

Except then we'd have four Holy Traditions because OO, RC, EO, P all have a different collection.

I'll go with Athanasius: they were handed down as divine and the minimalist 66 books for unity amongst us. The alternative, Tradition, simply doesn't take us where I hope we all want to go.

Several things are true and unavoidable--

Just about every known Christian church accepts the same 66 books of the Bible. A range of Catholic churches accept different ones in addition, but if there's anything universal in Christianity it's agreement that the 66 books are divinely revealed.

Also, each Catholic church has a different version of what's Tradition.

Those two facts leave us with an obvious conclusion about what to look to for guidance.

 

[Rick Otto]

Several things are true and unavoidable--

Just about every known Christian church accepts the same 66 books of the Bible. A range of Catholic churches accept different ones in addition, but if there's anything universal in Christianity it's agreement that the 66 books are divinely revealed.

Also, each Catholic church has a different version of what's Tradition.

Those two facts leave us with an obvious conclusion about what to look to for guidance.

You have discovered the holly grail of Christian unity.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

the fact that you believe a collection of books contains the word of God, and you are fairly confident you who the specific collection of books that have this, shows that you believe in some form of Tradition and you view it as authoritative

It's really only one step removed, though, isn't it? How do you know that your particular set of Holy Traditions is actually the one that was handed down by the apostles?

 

[Erose]

What exactly is Holy Tradition,

It is a church's beliefs. For ancient churches it is their deposit of faith.

and how many Christian denominations practice them,

every single one no matter how small or large. I know Protestants like to believe they don't have one; but that is just a group of people deceiving themselves. It's like someone claiming to be a Christian, but rejecting religion. Self-deception.

and how many different versions are there?

how many denominations are there?

 

[Erose]

the fact that you believe a collection of books contains the word of God, and you are fairly confident you who the specific collection of books that have this, shows that you believe in some form of Tradition and you view it as authoritative

Most of us don't believe, as liberal theology now holds, that the Bible "CONTAINS" the word of God (mixed with the ponderings and theories of ordinary humans along with erroneous historical and literary references). We believe that it is divine revelation.

The same point of Rhamiel's applies as well. You believe the Bible contains Divine Revelation, is external to the Bible; thus you have a Sacred Tradition that you adhere to.

 

[Rick Otto]

To simply say it is a church's beliefs or a deposit of faith leaves a standard of origin wide open.

 

[Erose]

Except then we'd have four Holy Traditions because OO, RC, EO, P all have a different collection.

It still applies. You believing that the Bible is the Word of God or Divine Revelation, requires an external authority to make such a claim.

I'll go with Athanasius: they were handed down as divine and the minimalist 66 books for unity amongst us. The alternative, Tradition, simply doesn't take us where I hope we all want to go.

Hum, considering that the Protestants don't follow Athanasius' list, what is one to do?

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

And lets not forget it is missing Esther. So my question then to you is do you view the book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as Scripture? And do you reject Esther?

 

[Erose]

To simply say it is a church's beliefs or a deposit of faith leaves a standard of origin wide open.

It is what it is. The Sacred Tradition is what we believe. Now as a Catholic I believe that the source of this Deposit of Faith, comes straight from the Apostles, and has been handed down through the generations; but that doesn't take away the fact that Sacred Tradition is my belief system.

Every single denomination, has their own sacred tradition that they use to read Scripture through the lens of. Now somewhere in the history of that denomination, their sacred tradition started through the exegesis of Scripture by one or a group of men; but that man or men established albeit perhaps unwittingly a sacred tradition, by which the denomination that sprung forth uses to read Scripture. It is what it is. I really don't understand the huge desire of Protestants to deny this fact.

 

[Erose]

It's really only one step removed, though, isn't it? How do you know that your particular set of Holy Traditions is actually the one that was handed down by the apostles?

By the same method that we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who redeemed us through His death and resurrection: Faith.

For me it has always been test the world view against many factors: obviously Scripture (for I have a Protestant background); but also how it stands up, to what I am actually experiencing in my faith journey, how the system of beliefs form a cohesive whole if they do, does that system of faith make sense overall, how does the system line up with the belief system of the ancient fathers, and there are probably a few others I can't think of at this time.

Now for me Scripture was an important factor, because like I said I converted from Protestantism; but for many cradle Catholics, they don't use Scripture as a factor, because to them Scripture is part of the whole that they are accepting or rejecting. Hopefully this makes some sense.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is what it is.

Wide open.

I really don't understand the huge desire of Protestants to deny this fact.

They do, thus Sola Scriptura.

You believing that the Bible is the Word of God or Divine Revelation, requires an external authority to make such a claim.

Not if at least 66 books of the Bible declares it.

 

[Erose]

Several things are true and unavoidable--

Just about every known Christian church accepts the same 66 books of the Bible. A range of Catholic churches accept different ones in addition, but if there's anything universal in Christianity it's agreement that the 66 books are divinely revealed.

Up until the Protestant revolt, every know Christian Church except for Ethiopian accepted the 73 book Canon. It wasn't until the revolt that this number got reduced. So should all Christians just default to a minimalist view? That don't make sense on any level.

 

[Tigger45]

<snip>They do, thus Sola Scriptura.<snip>

Isn't Sola Scriptura a tradition in and of it self? Especially considering the early church didn't have the NT completed and subsequently complied initially?

 

[Erose]

Wide open.

Due only to denominationalism.

They do, thus Sola Scriptura.

Yeah, don't hold up though, due to the very fact that Sola Scriptura, is NOT a doctrine found in Scripture.

Not if at least 66 books of the Bible declares it.

Hum... Which books in the Bible declare themselves as what you claim them to be? I can see one making a case for that for the Torah, Revelation... What others, and where do you find these passages that make these claims?

 

[Albion]

The same point of Rhamiel's applies as well. You believe the Bible contains Divine Revelation, is external to the Bible; thus you have a Sacred Tradition that you adhere to.

Another misuse of the term "Tradition."

I believe the Bible because I am persuaded by the Bible that it is true. I do not believe it because there is some track record of people in my culture accepting it.

Once again, "Tradition" is not just custom as you'd like us to think it is. It is a method by which alleged additional revelation from God is ascertained, at least in theory. The most obvious problem with the theory is that every Catholic church uses a different set of beliefs based upon the particular opinions from history that it chooses to accept, thus defying the basis on which "Tradition" supposedly reveals anything.

 

[Rick Otto]

Isn't Sola Scriptura a tradition in and of it self?...~

Depends on how broadly and abstractly we want to define it.

Is logic itself a tradition?

 

[Erose]

Another misuse of the term "Tradition."

I believe the Bible because I am persuaded by the Bible that it is true. I do not believe it because there is some track record of people in my culture accepting it.

Yeah, a lot of folks have the same disillusion that they excepted the Bible in a vacuum.

Once again, "Tradition" is not just custom as you'd like us to think it is. It is a method by which alleged additional revelation from God is ascertained, at least in theory. The most obvious problem with the theory is that every Catholic church uses a different set of beliefs based upon the particular opinions from history that it chooses to accept, thus defying the basis on which "Tradition" supposedly reveals anything.

I never claimed it is custom. I said it was the set of beliefs for that denomination. That isn't customer, albeit customs can be part of the traditional basis of any given church. That is one of the reasons why the ancient Churches not just the Catholic Church emphasize the difference between Sacred "T"raditions and Church "t"raditions. "t"raditions can be changed and do change over the centuries, while "T"radition does not change, we may gain a greater understanding of a specific article of "T"radition; but the "T"radition itself never changes.

I think the reason why so many faith traditions want to deny that they have their own sacred tradition, is that they realize that their denomination's beliefs change quite frequently, and then they use the excuse that those who came before them misinterpreted the Bible. Thus for example you go from every single Christian denomination seeing the use of artificial contraception as sinful, to the vast majority now fully accepting their use.

 

[Albion]

Depends on how broadly and abstractly we want to define it.

Is logic itself a tradition?

Do we reject slavery because it's "traditional" to do so?

Is sunlight a tradition?

Of course you are right about the attempt being made to turn everything in life into a product of their theological system just by slapping the word on it.

 

[Tigger45]

Isn't Sola Scriptura a tradition in and of it self? Especially considering the early church didn't have the NT completed and subsequently complied initially?

Depends on how broadly and abstractly we want to define it.

Is logic itself a tradition?

Okay then I'll narrow it down by asking isn't Sola Scriptura a Holy Tradition? (a sacred way of practicing and understanding religious doctrines within certain Christian denominations?)

 

[Erose]

Do we reject slavery because it's "traditional" to do so?

Is sunlight a tradition?

Of course you are right about the attempt being made to turn everything in life into a product of their theological system just by slapping the word on it.

I don't really know how to respond to this, which is surprising, because most of your posts do make some form of sense. This one doesn't.