Problems with Sacred Tradition

[thecolorsblend]

The Reformed answer is to say that we know that Scripture is authoritative because Scripture says so.

That doesn't seem a bit circular to you?

If Scripture is the Word of God, then it makes sense that it needs nothing else to attest to its authority.

Then what's up with all the debate people have had over the millennia about what is and isn't inspired?

But you've got a problem. You say that we don't know that Scripture is authoritative unless Tradition tells us so.

Which is true, btw.

So, in your view, how do we know that Tradition is authoritative? Is it because Tradition tells us so? If so, then your view amounts to Sola Ecclesia.

The authority is measurable through history, going right back to Our Lord's earthly ministry.

Could you demonstrate how the full-orbed concept of Sacred Tradition existed before Trent? When the ECFs talk about tradition they appear to be talking about apostolic teaching contained in Scripture.

As I say, I wouldn't be surprised if the Council of Trent was the most comprehensive statement regarding sacred tradition which the Church had ever issued up to then precisely because of the "reformers".

Separately, the Church existed for a pretty long time without a fully understood Christian scriptural canon. The lack of it didn't seem to harm the Church in any noticeable way.

One interesting thing though...

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree — that is, all the faithful in the whole world — and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 189 AD

Irenaeus makes no appeal to sacred scripture here to respond to heretics. He instead refers to the Church's hierarchy and the tradition. To him, that settled the matter.

Why did he think he could point only to those two things and assume that puts paid to what the gnostics of his time said? He got the idea that he could do that from somebody. As a Catholic, I can point to writings like that and say that Irenaeus was relying on sacred tradition along with the Magisterium to determine who to believe.

I'm not sure what the "reformed" appraisal of Against Heresies would be.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

That doesn't seem a bit circular to you?

I suppose you didn't notice that his position parallels yours.

The authority is measurable through history, going right back to Our Lord's earthly ministry.

You know that's true, because sacred tradition says so.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I suppose you didn't notice that his position parallels yours.

Mmm, so why not use the occasion to show me where I'm wrong by demonstrating the superiority of his position?

You know that's true, because sacred tradition says so.

Don't get nasty, brother.

 

[GingerBeer]

Well one problem here is that this does not appear to be how your church authorities define it. And also this definition is so nebulous that I'm left totally unsure as to what qualifies as Tradition and what does not. This is important because "Tradition" is an infallible guide of faith and practice. If what counts as "Tradition" is unclear then this is a recipe for disaster.

Nebulous is it? How about what Jesus said to Nicodemus, was that too nebulous to be true?

John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. It is like that with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”​

Some people are so wedded to propositional statements as the full and final measure of truth that they dismiss everything that doesn't fit the narrow confines of "propositional statements" as "mysticism". Evidently they despise mysticism. Is that what is behind your post (quoted above)?

 

[Tree of Life]

Mmm, so why not use the occasion to show me where I'm wrong by demonstrating the superiority of his position?

It's either Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia. Ultimate authorities will always be self-referential and self attesting.

God is truth. How do we know that God is truth? Because God, the ultimate authority, says that he is truth. We don't need something higher than God to attest to his truthfulness.

So either Scripture is authoritative because it says that it's authoritative, or the Church is authoritative because the Church says that it's authoritative. Which do you prefer?

Don't get nasty, brother.

He's simply pointing out the problem in your position.

 

[Tree of Life]

Nebulous is it? How about what Jesus said to Nicodemus, was that too nebulous to be true?

John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. It is like that with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”​

Some people are so wedded to propositional statements as the full and final measure of truth that they dismiss everything that doesn't fit the narrow confines of "propositional statements" as "mysticism". Evidently they despise mysticism. Is that what is behind your post (quoted above)?

If you want to say that Sacred Tradition is a source of authority, you have to be able to tell me what is and isn't Sacred Tradition.

 

[GingerBeer]

If you want to say that Sacred Tradition is a source of authority, you have to be able to tell me what is and isn't Sacred Tradition.

Why does anybody have to tell you?

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's either Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia. Ultimate authorities will always be self-referential and self attesting.

God is truth. How do we know that God is truth? Because God, the ultimate authority, says that he is truth. We don't need something higher than God to attest to his truthfulness.

So either Scripture is authoritative because it says that it's authoritative, or the Church is authoritative because the Church says that it's authoritative. Which do you prefer?

You know, that's useful in terms of helping me better understand the way you view this.

To draw a contrast, I don't see this is an either/or proposition. The scriptures are authoritative for me. But the Magisterium is authoritative too. It isn't that one is somehow different from the other or should be subservient to the other. They both speak authoritatively.

However, going by the above, your understanding is that there can only be one authority. And while you're right, there can only be one, you're missing that the Magisterium and sacred scripture are competing authorities but rather expressions of God's own authority. To be fair, you do recognize that of sacred scripture (to your credit) but I recognize that God's authority include the Magisterium.

Anyway. Good post though, nice one.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Why does anybody have to tell you?

Mmm...

Fair question, actually.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why does anybody have to tell you?

Nevermind.

 

[fhansen]

Roman Catholics, and to some extent Eastern Orthodox, reject Sola Scriptura because they believe that the Word of God is infallibly conveyed not in Scripture alone, but in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Father George Tavard, Catholic theologian, says that Sacred Tradition is: "inseparable from the Bible itself. Both are to be read together. They stand or fall together."

But what exactly is meant by "Sacred Tradition"? It appears difficult to define. The Council of Trent defined it like this:

"[the Gospel is] the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. [This council] clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were by hand... [This council receives the books of Scripture and] also morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession."
​

According to these words, Sacred Tradition is the collection of "saving truths" to believe and "rules of conduct" to live by which were taught by Christ, received and taught by the apostles, and passed on to the bishops in every age of the church, but were not written down.

Sacred Tradition also appears to include how the church fathers traditionally interpreted Scripture. Trent again:

"[No individual should] presume to interpret [the Scriptures] in accordance with his own conceptions...contrary to the sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers..."
​

Sacred Tradition is, then, also the way that the Catholic Church has tended to interpret the Bible. Tavard summarizes Trent's view on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture like this:

"Scripture contains all revealed doctrine, and the Church's faith which includes apostolic traditions, interprets it."​

R.A.F. Mackenzie, Catholic theologian, furthermore adds that Sacred Tradition includes the present application of Scripture and church teaching to new questions faced by the church. He says of Scripture alone:

"...a written record is a dead letter, needing constant interpretation and commentary in succeeding ages. It cannot of itself answer new questions, or explain what was once clear and has now become obscure. The writings transmitted in a living community, from one generation to another, are accompanied by a continuous tradition of understanding and explanation...which applies them...to the solving of new problems."
​

So altogether, we can say that Sacred Tradition is a collection of teachings concerning things we should believe and do which were taught by Jesus Christ but not written down, how the church has historically interpreted Scripture, the doctrinal statements of the church which come from her councils, and how the Bible is currently interpreted by the church to answer new questions and solve new problems.

What are the problems with the concept of Sacred Tradition? There are several:

1. Apart from the authoritative writings of the apostles, we cannot be sure that a teaching came from Christ or the apostles because men are fallible.
   
   
2. Just because an interpretation of Scripture enjoys a long tradition and antiquity does not make this interpretation correct. If it can be shown, from Scripture itself, that a traditional interpretation is wrong then it should be rejected.
   
   
3. The Magisterium of the Catholic church has often taught doctrines which are not substantiated by Scripture. Therefore the claim that Catholic Tradition and Scripture are always perfectly unified is false. Many Catholic doctrines go well beyond Scripture and some even flatly contradict Scripture. If "tradition" were nothing more than the accurate interpretation of Scripture then we should accept tradition as the Word of God. But Catholic Tradition often goes beyond Scripture.
   
   
4. This makes the rulings, interpretations, and doctrinal statements of the church irrevocable. We cannot change Scripture because it is the word of God. But if the church made a wrong judgment at a particular time in history, the church of later generations should have the freedom to recognize this erroneous judgment and to correct it. There's no reason why this cannot be part of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth.
   
   
5. This very process was occurring in Jesus' own day with the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes. Pharisaical teaching surrounding Scripture and ultimately came to obscure and go beyond Scripture. Jesus contradicted the Pharisees, condemned this practice, and sought to go back to Scripture itself.
   
   
6. This really just amounts to saying that Catholic Doctrine is infallible. Since the concept of Sacred Tradition was not really developed until the Council of Trent, it is obvious that this was a move from the Roman Church to respond to the Reformation. Any doctrinal statements or interpretations of any church are always subject to the Word of God and open to question. If it can be demonstrated that such a judgment does not concord with God's Word then it should be rejected.

Consider that the Church, itself, is the receptacle that received the "deposit of faith" at the beginning, before a word of the New Testament was written. Now consider that many doctrines that Sola Scriptura adherents argue over with each other, such as baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the Real Presence, the role of man's will in his salvation, assurance of salvation, etc, were settled issues from the beginning for the Church, both in the east and west.

Without a continuous legacy of experience from the beginning, these and other doctrines would be up for grabs: may the "best" exegete win, as if bible interpretation was all there was to it. Even the deity of Jesus can be argued plausibly either way, going by Scripture alone.

 

[GingerBeer]

Nevermind.

I don't mind. You got the whole idea of Tradition wrong. It isn't - as you appear to believe - a deposit locked in the past in written forms. Apostolic Tradition is exactly what its name implies. The things that the Apostles of Christ left by example, word, and deed for Christians to use and profit from. The Holy Spirit keeps both Scripture and Tradition alive among Christians. This is not, as seems to be your suggestion, a collection of scrolls or books that spell out in writing a body of extra-scriptural truth.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't mind. You got the whole idea of Tradition wrong. It isn't - as you appear to believe - a deposit locked in the past in written forms. Apostolic Tradition is exactly what its name implies. The things that the Apostles of Christ left by example, word, and deed for Christians to use and profit from. The Holy Spirit keeps both Scripture and Tradition alive among Christians. This is not, as seems to be your suggestion, a collection of scrolls or books that spell out in writing a body of extra-scriptural truth.

This is a pretty good way of phrasing it.

The issue which I'm not sure some Protestants really grasp is that sacred tradition is a living thing. It's active and relevant now, keeping the Church on the straight and narrow. The authority is God's and it's made manifest through the Magisterium.

As you've probably noticed, there's a temptation among a lot of Protestants to visualize some artificial dichotomy between sacred tradition and sacred scripture where, in fact, none should be presumed to exist.

But anyway, it's late and I'm a little punchy and rambly. That was a good post from you, kudos.

 

[HwtChirino]

Roman Catholics, and to some extent Eastern Orthodox, reject Sola Scriptura because they believe that the Word of God is infallibly conveyed not in Scripture alone, but in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Father George Tavard, Catholic theologian, says that Sacred Tradition is: "inseparable from the Bible itself. Both are to be read together. They stand or fall together."

But what exactly is meant by "Sacred Tradition"? It appears difficult to define. The Council of Trent defined it like this:

"[the Gospel is] the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. [This council] clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were by hand... [This council receives the books of Scripture and] also morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession."
​

According to these words, Sacred Tradition is the collection of "saving truths" to believe and "rules of conduct" to live by which were taught by Christ, received and taught by the apostles, and passed on to the bishops in every age of the church, but were not written down.

Sacred Tradition also appears to include how the church fathers traditionally interpreted Scripture. Trent again:

"[No individual should] presume to interpret [the Scriptures] in accordance with his own conceptions...contrary to the sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers..."
​

Sacred Tradition is, then, also the way that the Catholic Church has tended to interpret the Bible. Tavard summarizes Trent's view on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture like this:

"Scripture contains all revealed doctrine, and the Church's faith which includes apostolic traditions, interprets it."​

R.A.F. Mackenzie, Catholic theologian, furthermore adds that Sacred Tradition includes the present application of Scripture and church teaching to new questions faced by the church. He says of Scripture alone:

"...a written record is a dead letter, needing constant interpretation and commentary in succeeding ages. It cannot of itself answer new questions, or explain what was once clear and has now become obscure. The writings transmitted in a living community, from one generation to another, are accompanied by a continuous tradition of understanding and explanation...which applies them...to the solving of new problems."
​

So altogether, we can say that Sacred Tradition is a collection of teachings concerning things we should believe and do which were taught by Jesus Christ but not written down, how the church has historically interpreted Scripture, the doctrinal statements of the church which come from her councils, and how the Bible is currently interpreted by the church to answer new questions and solve new problems.

What are the problems with the concept of Sacred Tradition? There are several:

1. Apart from the authoritative writings of the apostles, we cannot be sure that a teaching came from Christ or the apostles because men are fallible.
   
   
2. Just because an interpretation of Scripture enjoys a long tradition and antiquity does not make this interpretation correct. If it can be shown, from Scripture itself, that a traditional interpretation is wrong then it should be rejected.
   
   
3. The Magisterium of the Catholic church has often taught doctrines which are not substantiated by Scripture. Therefore the claim that Catholic Tradition and Scripture are always perfectly unified is false. Many Catholic doctrines go well beyond Scripture and some even flatly contradict Scripture. If "tradition" were nothing more than the accurate interpretation of Scripture then we should accept tradition as the Word of God. But Catholic Tradition often goes beyond Scripture.
   
   
4. This makes the rulings, interpretations, and doctrinal statements of the church irrevocable. We cannot change Scripture because it is the word of God. But if the church made a wrong judgment at a particular time in history, the church of later generations should have the freedom to recognize this erroneous judgment and to correct it. There's no reason why this cannot be part of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth.
   
   
5. This very process was occurring in Jesus' own day with the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes. Pharisaical teaching surrounding Scripture and ultimately came to obscure and go beyond Scripture. Jesus contradicted the Pharisees, condemned this practice, and sought to go back to Scripture itself.
   
   
6. This really just amounts to saying that Catholic Doctrine is infallible. Since the concept of Sacred Tradition was not really developed until the Council of Trent, it is obvious that this was a move from the Roman Church to respond to the Reformation. Any doctrinal statements or interpretations of any church are always subject to the Word of God and open to question. If it can be demonstrated that such a judgment does not concord with God's Word then it should be rejected.

I have several refutations to present to you:

1) You omit the inerrant leading of the Holy Spirit and presume that it is man who leads the Church of Jesus Christ.

2) You think that if Holy Tradition interprets Scripture in a way that does not agree with your understanding of scripture, it must be erroneous.

3) You say that several aspects of Sacred Tradition are not substantiated by the Holy Scriptures; however, what you mean is that many Traditions are not supported by your understanding of the Scriptures.

4) You are right in saying that the rulings and interpretations of the Church should be irrevocable and authoritative, but you are wrong in assuming that Christ's Church could at any time be led astray by the spirit of error instead of being led into the fullness of Truth by the Holy Spirit.

5) The Lord said, Everyone that is of the Truth hears My voice. Thus, if you see many divisions and schisms and sects and denominations, do not be deceived and believe that this is the work of the Holy Spirit and that these so-called churches are following the Good Shepherd with all accuracy and the fullness of truth. No, there is One Church, One Truth, being derived directly from Christ by believers in the Holy Spirit.

6) If you reject traditions, there is a chance that you are confusing non-dogmatic (non-essential) traditions with dogmatic Holy Traditions. The former is based on cultural customs and mores, whereas the former is based on the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

7) How can you tell if the dogmatic Traditions are legitimate or counterfeits? Have humility, desire to know the Truth with all your being, cry out to God for His grace to be led into the fullness of Truth by the Holy Spirit, and know that if the theology and practices of Tradition bring forth good fruit, righteousness, and victory over sin all by the grace of God, then these Traditions are of God, since it cannot be possible for Sacred Tradition to bring man into pride, ungodliness, falsehood, and enslavement to sin. Alas, the answer to this question is unsatisfactory because the just shall live by faith. And it is by faith, and tasting and seeing that the Lord is good, that we know that the Traditions of the Church are sacred and of the Holy Spirit. In the Holy Spirit, there is no novelty that opposes established dogmas. In the Holy Spirit, Truth does not change or become eradicated. In the Holy Spirit, there is no divisions and schisms. In the Holy Spirit, there is no one man who speaks for God, but many holy men who speak by the Holy Spirit of God with the mind of Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

The Bible came from man, man didn't come from the Bible.

Unfortunately your own catechism disagrees with the above:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

 

[redleghunter]

So, if a group claims to have Biblical traditions, I am looking and listening to find out if they emphasize traditions like these which are right in the Bible and guarantee how we will become if we live in God's love.

You should be looking for this. As Christians we should all be exhorting and encouraging each other to trust and obey in the agape love of God.

Our Apostle Paul says,

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

So, he says there are "traditions" which they were taught . . . by "epistle", but also "by word". So, I have to consider that there could be traditions which were not written in "epistle", but they were taught "by word".

But, of course, this does not automatically guarantee that traditions of any group have to be right!

Yes quite often used by Catholic apologists. What they can't answer and I continue to ask is what are these traditions handed down which are unwritten. They use this passage as a blank check.

 

[HwtChirino]

How can a man conjure the Truth of God without the grace bestowed on him by the Holy Spirit? It is utterly impossible. Therefore, no one should ever proclaim the falsehood that men wrote the Bible. More accurately, men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the Scriptures. And even more precisely, men who were led by the Holy Spirit, identified and canonized the Holy Scriptures.

 

[HwtChirino]

Yes quite often used by Catholic apologists. What they can't answer and I continue to ask is what are these traditions handed down which are unwritten. They use this passage as a blank check.

These Traditions are found in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first 800 years of Christianity, beginning with St. Ignatius, the successor of St. John the Evangelist, the beloved Apostle of the Lord.

Familiarize yourself with the early Christian writings, and you will learn what these traditions are.

 

[redleghunter]

But Holy Tradition is just as the saints say it is: it is active participation in the mystical Life of the Holy Trinity, and all of the outward expressions and practices flowing out of it and back into it, like the breathing of God.

I believe the apostle Paul explained it more clearly in Romans 8 as walking in the Spirit. Yet the answer you gave is much like an answer I hear from Pentecostals. They see the Bible as the Word of God but put their personal revelations on par with the Scriptures. Yet one or the other can conflict.

Meaning they would accept the personal revelation over the infallible Scriptures. Which say test all spirits.