The Certainty of Tradition

[Perceivence]

Oye!

As a Protestant, one of my major gripes with Catholic holding tradition in such high regard is the uncertainty of the accuracy of the tradition. Really, this is just speculation and I really have next to no idea as to how near to the truth this speculation is.

So I decided to come here and ask.

1. According to this site, there was a dispute based on tradition as early as the second century between 2nd or so generation followers of different Apostles. Here reads the relevant portion:

Besides, apostolic tradition, at most and best, is a very precarious and uncertain thing, and not to be depended on; we have a famous instance of this, in the controversy that arose in the second century, about the time of keeping Easter; whether it should be observed on the 14th day of the first moon, let it fall on what day of the week it would, or on the Sunday following; the former was observed by the churches of Asia, and the latter by the church of some; both pleaded the custom and usage of their predecessors, and even ancient apostolic tradition;the Asiatic churches said, they had it by tradition from Philip and John; the Roman church from Peter and Paul; but not being able to fettle this point, which was in the right, Victor, the then bishop of Rome, excommunicated the other churches that would not fall in with the practice of him and his church; this was in the year 196; and even before this, in the year 157, this same controversy was on foot; and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who had been a hearer and disciple of the apostle John, made a journey to some, and conversed with Anicetus bishop of that place, about this matter; they talked it over candidly, parted friendly, but without convincing each other, both retaining their former customs and tradition;

How true is this account?

2. How does the Church determine which writings of a member should comprise tradition and which should not? What criterion is there?

3. Do Catholics believe oral tradition to be inspired and/or infallible (like the Bible)?

Thank you all in advance for your responses.

Peace in Christ.

 

[Veritas]

Oye!

As a Protestant, one of my major gripes with Catholic holding tradition in such high regard is the uncertainty of the accuracy of the tradition. Really, this is just speculation and I really have next to no idea as to how near to the truth this speculation is.

So I decided to come here and ask.

1. According to this site, there was a dispute based on tradition as early as the second century between 2nd or so generation followers of different Apostles. Here reads the relevant portion:

Besides, apostolic tradition, at most and best, is a very precarious and uncertain thing, and not to be depended on; we have a famous instance of this, in the controversy that arose in the second century, about the time of keeping Easter; whether it should be observed on the 14th day of the first moon, let it fall on what day of the week it would, or on the Sunday following; the former was observed by the churches of Asia, and the latter by the church of some; both pleaded the custom and usage of their predecessors, and even ancient apostolic tradition;the Asiatic churches said, they had it by tradition from Philip and John; the Roman church from Peter and Paul; but not being able to fettle this point, which was in the right, Victor, the then bishop of Rome, excommunicated the other churches that would not fall in with the practice of him and his church; this was in the year 196; and even before this, in the year 157, this same controversy was on foot; and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who had been a hearer and disciple of the apostle John, made a journey to some, and conversed with Anicetus bishop of that place, about this matter; they talked it over candidly, parted friendly, but without convincing each other, both retaining their former customs and tradition;

How true is this account?

2. How does the Church determine which writings of a member should comprise tradition and which should not? What criteria is there?

3. Do Catholics believe oral tradition to be inspired and/or infallible (like the Bible)?

Thank you all in advance for your responses.

Peace in Christ.

Have you considered that the New Testament is a part of Tradition? Jesus never wrote anything and He never told anyone else to write anything. And He sure never told anyone to collect what would end up being future writings (decades after His death) in a book that some people 1500 years later insist form the basis of their beliefs.

PS. The vast majority of the OT was oral tradition before it was eventually written down centuries after the events. Can we trust that?

 

[ps139]

Hi Perceivence

I do not know if I can answer your first questions but I can help with #3:

Do Catholics believe oral tradition to be inspired and/or infallible (like the Bible)?

2 Thess. 2:15
"So then, stand firm, and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Word of mouth = oral tradition
Letter = Scripture (Paul is probably referencing 1 Thess. here, but this can apply to all Scripture).

We consider Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial ("official") teaching to be equal with each other, and support each other.

 

[Skripper]

Oye!

As a Protestant, one of my major gripes with Catholic holding tradition in such high regard is the uncertainty of the accuracy of the tradition. Really, this is just speculation and I really have next to no idea as to how near to the truth this speculation is.

So I decided to come here and ask.

1. According to this site, there was a dispute based on tradition as early as the second century between 2nd or so generation followers of different Apostles. Here reads the relevant portion:

Besides, apostolic tradition, at most and best, is a very precarious and uncertain thing, and not to be depended on; we have a famous instance of this, in the controversy that arose in the second century, about the time of keeping Easter; whether it should be observed on the 14th day of the first moon, let it fall on what day of the week it would, or on the Sunday following; the former was observed by the churches of Asia, and the latter by the church of some; both pleaded the custom and usage of their predecessors, and even ancient apostolic tradition;the Asiatic churches said, they had it by tradition from Philip and John; the Roman church from Peter and Paul; but not being able to fettle this point, which was in the right, Victor, the then bishop of Rome, excommunicated the other churches that would not fall in with the practice of him and his church; this was in the year 196; and even before this, in the year 157, this same controversy was on foot; and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who had been a hearer and disciple of the apostle John, made a journey to some, and conversed with Anicetus bishop of that place, about this matter; they talked it over candidly, parted friendly, but without convincing each other, both retaining their former customs and tradition;

How true is this account?

The short answer . . . not very. It’s actually a distortion of the truth and, therefore, misleading. The truth is that it’s an extremely biased and slanted “account,” to say the least. But the fact that it’s slanted and biased, in and of itself, is not what makes it a distortion and misrepresentation, since an article can be slanted and bias without misrepresenting or distorting the truth. What makes this particular article unreliable is that it leaves out some truths while distorting and misrepresenting others. In other words, it contains some (half) truths, which makes it “believable,” then puts a particular (and misleading) spin on what truth it does contain, thus rendering the account a distortion and misrepresentation. This makes the author’s conclusion wholly unreliable, at least for the intellectually honest person who is genuinely seeking (the whole) truth. The article is believable only to those who are either (A) unfamiliar with the subject matter at hand (i.e. aren’t familiar with Pope Victor or the controversy surrounding the date of the celebration of Easter) or (B) are already predisposed to hold the author’s opinion that Sacred Tradition is invalid . . . or both.

The reasons why the above is not a reliable account is twofold. First of all, it’s not accurate in its portrayal of events, factually. For example, the author states that Victor, “the then bishop of Rome, excommunicated the other churches”. This is simply not true. This is, at the least, poor scholarship; the author didn’t check his “facts.” It is, at worst, an intentional distortion. Pope Victor never excommunicated the Asian churches. Although he did indeed threaten to do so, he was persuaded not to by some of the reigning bishops, the most famous of which was St. Irenaeus. The author is exaggerating events, either knowingly (which is dishonest) or unknowingly (which is poor scholarship) in an effort to bolster his case. In either case, this calls into question not only the credibility and validity of the article itself but, necessarily, its conclusions. From false premises come false conclusions. I am, however, leaning towards attributing to the article poor scholarship rather than intentional deception on the part of the author because, in addition to the factual misrepresentations, the article is also riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, which also points to poor scholarship.

The second and more important reason is that the author’s entire argument is wholly irrelevant with respect to the validity and authenticity of Sacred Tradition. His argument, paraphrased and summarized, goes something like this:

“Since there was a dispute in the early Church surrounding the day on which Easter is celebrated each year, and since both sides appealed to their own tradition, Sacred Tradition is therefore unreliable and false.”

To even attempt to make the above argument is to misunderstand and confuse “t” tradition (customs and practices which are changeable) and “T” Tradition (Sacred Apostolic Tradition, which is not). The celebration of Easter according to either tradition is perfectly acceptable, which was the final decision, even back then at the time of the controversy. Moreover, it would STILL be perfectly acceptable and not “evidence” or “proof” against Sacred Tradition even if this was to fall under “T” Tradition for the Eastern and Western churches, respectively. This is so because neither position is a denial or contradiction of the authentic Faith. Neither is a denial or contradiction of the Resurrection itself. Therefore both are acceptable, and both are in perfect harmony, whether “t” tradition or “T” Tradition. Because both deal with the celebration of the event (the Resurrection) and not the event itself, at least not in the sense that either tradition would deny or in any way take away from the Resurrection.

2. How does the Church determine which writings of a member should comprise tradition and which should not? What criterion is there?

Again, one must understand the differences between “t” traditions and “T” Traditions, as briefly explained above. And the criteria by which the Church determines which is which is whether it is something handed down by the Apostles. The method by which the Church does that is either by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterial teaching office of the Church. I’m sorry, but a more full-orbed and in-depth explanation of this would require a bit more time than I have available at the moment. If you desire further explanation, please start another thread on this topic.

3. Do Catholics believe oral tradition to be inspired and/or infallible (like the Bible)?

No. Catholics do not believe “t” tradition to be inspired like the Bible. Catholics believe “T” Sacred Tradition to be inspired, which the Bible itself is a part of. Both the Bible and Sacred Oral Tradition are believed by Catholics to be part of the same divine wellspring of Sacred Tradition. One written down in the form of Sacred Scripture, the other in form of Sacred Oral Tradition.

Also, just for clarification, the Bible is not “infallible.” Before anyone’s eye’s bulge out, infallibility is an attribute associated with interpretation and cannot be ascribed to the book itself. And no book, not even the Bible, is self-interpreting (as evidenced by the many varied denominations and beliefs, many based, to some extent, upon various interpretations of the Bible) and, therefore, cannot be “infallible.” The Bible is inspired and therefore inerrant. But it is incorrect to apply the term “infallible” to the Bible. Fallible or infallible can only be applied to interpretations of the Bible, not the Bible itself, which is inspired and inerrant.

Thank you all in advance for your responses.

Peace in Christ.

You’re welcome!

 

[Skripper]

This is a little off-topic but something else just occurred to me after posting. The author, without explicitly using the term “Pope,” clearly identifies Victor, (“the then bishop of Rome”) as having authority over the Church, as having a certain primacy. In other words, the author, at least tacitly, concedes to the existence of the office of the papacy (or something like it) as early as the reign of Pope Victor (A.D. 189-199). Now, of course, the author attempts to portray Pope Victor in a bad light . . . but . . . that does not take away from the fact that even he (the author) acknowledges a primacy held by Victor. And that, friend, is the papacy.

MODERATOR'S NOTE: This is not an invitation for non-Catholics to attempt to debate the existence or non-existence of the office of Pope.

 

[geocajun]

Also, just for clarification, the Bible is not “infallible.” Before anyone’s eye’s bulge out, infallibility is an attribute associated with interpretation and cannot be ascribed to the book itself. And no book, not even the Bible, is self-interpreting (as evidenced by the many varied denominations and beliefs, many based, to some extent, upon various interpretations of the Bible) and, therefore, cannot be “infallible.” The Bible is inspired and therefore inerrant. But it is incorrect to apply the term “infallible” to the Bible. Fallible or infallible can only be applied to interpretations of the Bible, not the Bible itself, which is inspired and inerrant.

now there is something which needs to be better understood by many.

 

[geocajun]

We consider Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial ("official") teaching to be equal with each other, and support each other.

You are correct ps139,
I would just like to clarify that the Magisterium as at the service of the Written and Oral Tradition.
The Magisterium itself is not a 'deposit' of faith, as both the Written and Oral Traditions are, but rather its function is to preserve the people of God from defections or deviations and gaurantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith, without error (CCC 890)

 

[ps139]

Good point Geo.


Skripper that was one of the best posts I've seen in a long time!!!!!!

 

[Skripper]

Good point Geo.


Skripper that was one of the best posts I've seen in a long time!!!!!!

I've been slacking.

 

[Maggie893]

I would have to say Skripper, that was inspired!

 

[Perceivence]

Have you considered that the New Testament is a part of Tradition? Jesus never wrote anything and He never told anyone else to write anything. And He sure never told anyone to collect what would end up being future writings (decades after His death) in a book that some people 1500 years later insist form the basis of their beliefs.

PS. The vast majority of the OT was oral tradition before it was eventually written down centuries after the events. Can we trust that?

Can we trust the OT? I suppose we can; Jesus and the Apostles did, didn't they?

And yes, I know the New Testament is part of Tradition. I was referring to the Oral Tradition.

ps139

2 Thess. 2:15
"So then, stand firm, and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Word of mouth = oral tradition
Letter = Scripture (Paul is probably referencing 1 Thess. here, but this can apply to all Scripture).

We consider Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial ("official") teaching to be equal with each other, and support each other.

Thanks.

Is it correct to say that Catholics believe that all the Tradition they hold now were taught by the Apostles?

 

[Perceivence]

For example, the author states that Victor, “the then bishop of Rome, excommunicated the other churches”. This is simply not true. This is, at the least, poor scholarship; the author didn’t check his “facts.” It is, at worst, an intentional distortion. Pope Victor never excommunicated the Asian churches. Although he did indeed threaten to do so, he was persuaded not to by some of the reigning bishops, the most famous of which was St. Irenaeus.
[...]To even attempt to make the above argument is to misunderstand and confuse “t” tradition (customs and practices which are changeable) and “T” Tradition (Sacred Apostolic Tradition, which is not). The celebration of Easter according to either tradition is perfectly acceptable, which was the final decision, even back then at the time of the controversy.

So the Pope wanted to excommunicate churches based on a tradition?

Moreover, it would STILL be perfectly acceptable and not “evidence” or “proof” against Sacred Tradition even if this was to fall under “T” Tradition for the Eastern and Western churches, respectively. This is so because neither position is a denial or contradiction of the authentic Faith. Neither is a denial or contradiction of the Resurrection itself. Therefore both are acceptable, and both are in perfect harmony, whether “t” tradition or “T” Tradition. Because both deal with the celebration of the event (the Resurrection) and not the event itself, at least not in the sense that either tradition would deny or in any way take away from the Resurrection.

Ohkay.

Again, one must understand the differences between “t” traditions and “T” Traditions, as briefly explained above. And the criteria by which the Church determines which is which is whether it is something handed down by the Apostles. The method by which the Church does that is either by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterial teaching office of the Church. I’m sorry, but a more full-orbed and in-depth explanation of this would require a bit more time than I have available at the moment. If you desire further explanation, please start another thread on this topic.

Aiight. I think I will.

No. Catholics do not believe “t” tradition to be inspired like the Bible. Catholics believe “T” Sacred Tradition to be inspired, which the Bible itself is a part of. Both the Bible and Sacred Oral Tradition are believed by Catholics to be part of the same divine wellspring of Sacred Tradition. One written down in the form of Sacred Scripture, the other in form of Sacred Oral Tradition.

Okay.

Also, just for clarification, the Bible is not “infallible.” Before anyone’s eye’s bulge out, infallibility is an attribute associated with interpretation and cannot be ascribed to the book itself. And no book, not even the Bible, is self-interpreting (as evidenced by the many varied denominations and beliefs, many based, to some extent, upon various interpretations of the Bible) and, therefore, cannot be “infallible.” The Bible is inspired and therefore inerrant. But it is incorrect to apply the term “infallible” to the Bible. Fallible or infallible can only be applied to interpretations of the Bible, not the Bible itself, which is inspired and inerrant.

Makes sense. Thanks for the correction and everything else!

 

[InnerPhyre]

We trust that the Holy Spirit, who is the preserver of Truth preserves the integrity of Sacred Oral Tradition the same way we trust He preserves the integrity of Scripture. We don't have any copies of the very first original Scriptures, so how do we know they haven't been tampered with? We trust the Holy Spirit.

 

[Carrye]

So the Pope wanted to excommunicate churches based on a tradition?

Who are you talking about here? The Orthodox? The Lutherans? I guess I'm a bit confused.

Is it correct to say that Catholics believe that all the Tradition they hold now were taught by the Apostles?

Tradition originated with the Apostles. The view within Catholicism is that while Tradition doesn't change, it does evolve - our understanding becomes more complete over time. It's not that things have changed, or that God reveals something new, but that we're able to see x,y,or z more clearly.

Take a look at this section in our Catechism of the Catholic Church to understand it a little better. The CCC has a very nice and concise explanation.

 

[Carrye]

Nice work, Skripper!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

​

Well said Skripper!

 

[Illume]

Who are you talking about here? The Orthodox? The Lutherans? I guess I'm a bit confused.

I think he was referring to the part he quoted earlier with the debate over the date on which Easter should be celebrated.

 

[Carrye]

I think he was referring to the part he quoted earlier with the debate over the date on which Easter should be celebrated.

That's what I thought, and that's why I was confused. Catholics and Orthodox typically celebrate Easter on different dates, but that wasn't the reason for the Schism. In fact, this Easter question came much earlier than the Schism (1054).

... unless I'm way off base here.

 

[Skripper]

So the Pope wanted to excommunicate churches based on a tradition?

Pretty much, yes. Pope Victor was considered to be somewhat impetuous. Fortunately, he was dissuaded from doing so. Remember, popes are believed to be infallible only under certain, very limited circumstances, while speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals like, for instance, when defining dogmas. They are not impeccable (without sin), nor are they immune to making bad decisions when not speaking ex cathedra.