Why is Tradition reliable?

[barryatlake]

Albion,I think the Catechism seems to say Sacred Tradition is simply a larger source of revelation that includes Sacred Scripture. At first, everything was Sacred Tradition, then a few decades into the Church SOME of that Sacred Tradition was written down. There is overlap then between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

If one accepts "material sufficiency" then you can say virtually ALL of that Sacred Tradition was written down in Scripture, except for some practices and customs like prayer for the dead, infant baptism, parts of the liturgy, etc.

I like Mark Shea's definition he used on his Journey Home appearance (I think also in his book on the topic):

Sacred Tradition is the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. Nice short definition without saying where the tradition comes from, but obviously initially from Jesus and His apostles, and then passed on or handed down.

 

[yhwhismysalvation]

Albion,I think the Catechism seems to say Sacred Tradition is simply a larger source of revelation that includes Sacred Scripture. At first, everything was Sacred Tradition, then a few decades into the Church SOME of that Sacred Tradition was written down. There is overlap then between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

If one accepts "material sufficiency" then you can say virtually ALL of that Sacred Tradition was written down in Scripture, except for some practices and customs like prayer for the dead, infant baptism, parts of the liturgy, etc.

I like Mark Shea's definition he used on his Journey Home appearance (I think also in his book on the topic):

Sacred Tradition is the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. Nice short definition without saying where the tradition comes from, but obviously initially from Jesus and His apostles, and then passed on or handed down.

At the end of the day it's all a matter of faith imho.

 

[Albion]

I posted this in the Oriental Orthodox forum to get their views on this but I thought I should open this up to everyone really, Catholics and Orthodox especially.

Taking the Chalcedonian schism into account, why is tradition trusted so much and assumed to not change over time?

The Chalcedonian bishops thought they were preserving tradition. The non-Chalcedonian bishops thought they were also preserving tradition.

As someone who was formerly contemplating Catholicism but is now Protestant, doesn't the Bible seem like the only infallible source of doctrine?

Why trust tradition when we have these schisms, it seems like doctrines can change over time, there is no divine preservation but rather we must heed Jesus' and Paul's warnings to look out for false teachers.

Wow, have you hit this elusive nail right square on the head with this post!

 

[yhwhismysalvation]

Wow, have you hit this elusive nail right square on the head with this post!

After three years of studying Catholicism I am still uncertain as to whether or not to convert to Catholicism or remain Protestant.

 

[Albion]

After three years of studying Catholicism I am still uncertain as to whether or not to convert to Catholicism or remain Protestant.

Yes, these things often are longterm and agonizing. What I know, and what pretty much sealed the deal for me, was the realization--and the absolute certainty of it from study--that RCatholicism is based, i.e. rests upon, a myth. It's a complicated myth but Barryatlake gave us a good sample of it a few posts ago.

Sacred Tradition is the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. Nice short definition without saying where the tradition comes from, but obviously initially from Jesus and His apostles, and then passed on or handed down.

That statement is simply false. There is nothing common about Tradition and there are not enough records even to make that a probability. As you know, every Catholic-type church looks at the same fragments of past opinion, folklore, and etc. and extracts different ideas from it! That's why the RC, EO, OO, and others all claim that Tradition is their guide...and yet they all hold different doctrines based upon it!

And as for it being from Jesus and the Apostles, that's just something to say. No one knows. So if this is what is fundamental to that system of thought, I cannot align myself with it, especially not in preference to the word of God which, by the way, every one of these churches agrees IS the word of God.

 

[yhwhismysalvation]

Yes, these things often are longterm and agonizing. What I know, and what pretty much sealed the deal for me, was the realization--and the absolute certainty of it from study--that RCatholicism is based, i.e. rests upon, a myth. It's a complicated myth but Barryatlake gave us a good sample of it a few posts ago.



That statement is simply false. There is nothing common about Tradition and there are not enough records even to make that a probability. As you know, every Catholic-type church looks at the same fragments of past opinion, folklore, and etc. and extracts different ideas from it! That's why the RC, EO, OO, and others all claim that Tradition is their guide...and yet they all hold different doctrines based upon it!

And as for it being from Jesus and the Apostles, that's just something to say. No one knows. So if this is what is fundamental to that system of thought, I cannot align myself with it, especially not in preference to the word of God which, by the way, every one of these churches agrees IS the word of God.

That a decision like this is long term and agonizing is an understatement. I don't believe the sacred Tradition, apostolic succession, etc. of the Catholic Church can be proven historically and believe me I have tried. This is something I would have to accept as a matter of faith. I do however find support for the claims of the Catholic Church in scripture to a certain degree anyway. Possibly I will never make up my mind <sigh>. My wife who is 48 is a cradle Catholic and we go to Mass together.

Thanks for listening to me Albion.

Ed

 

[Albion]

Thanks for listening to me Albion.

Absolutely! Thank you for opening up to me about this. I definitely appreciated the conversation.

 

[Meowzltov]

Traditions are simply the oral teachings and other teachings of the Church. Remember that it is the Church, and not scripture, that is the pillar and ground of truth. (1Tim 3:15)

 

[Meowzltov]

As someone who was formerly contemplating Catholicism but is now Protestant, doesn't the Bible seem like the only infallible source of doctrine?

How can it be the only source? Where did the Bible come from if not from the Church. If the Bishops had not by their AUTHORITY created the canon, we would have no New Testament.

 

[Albion]

How can it be the only source? Where did the Bible come from if not from the Church. If the Bishops had not by their AUTHORITY created the canon, we would have no New Testament.

Well, 2/3 of it came from another and older religion--Judaism. And the rest came directly from one or more of the Apostles.

The idea that some organization with office space and a card-carrying membership like the AARP or a Labor Union set out to create a book of sacred scriptures is pretty fanciful.

 

[patricius79]

I posted this in the Oriental Orthodox forum to get their views on this but I thought I should open this up to everyone really, Catholics and Orthodox especially.

Taking the Chalcedonian schism into account, why is tradition trusted so much and assumed to not change over time?

The Chalcedonian bishops thought they were preserving tradition. The non-Chalcedonian bishops thought they were also preserving tradition.

As someone who was formerly contemplating Catholicism but is now Protestant, doesn't the Bible seem like the only infallible source of doctrine?

Why trust tradition when we have these schisms, it seems like doctrines can change over time, there is no divine preservation but rather we must heed Jesus' and Paul's warnings to look out for false teachers.

well, that would be like saying, "how can we trust the written Traditions (the Bible), when there is so much disagreement on what it means?"

the reason the Bible teaches that we should hold fast to what was handed on either orally OR in writing (2 Thes 2:15) is because both are from God

but anyone who really wants to find the correct meaning of the Word of God can seek it out and find it

 

[Meowzltov]

As someone who was formerly contemplating Catholicism but is now Protestant, doesn't the Bible seem like the only infallible source of doctrine?

How does that solve the problem any more than tradition? Those who believe the Bible is the sole infallible source of doctrine can't even agree on what those doctrines are.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, 2/3 of it came from another and older religion--Judaism. And the rest came directly from one or more of the Apostles.

The apostles did not set the canon of scripture. For that you need the authority of the Church.

 

[Albion]

The apostles did not set the canon of scripture. For that you need the authority of the Church.

That's kinda silly to say. The churchmen of the 4th century didn't write the Bible; and everyone knows that most of the books were in existence even before the Incarnation.

 

[Meowzltov]

That's kinda silly to say. The churchmen of the 4th century didn't write the Bible; and everyone knows that most of the books were in existence even before the Incarnation.

But they put together the canon. I'm sure you can see this distinction.

 

[Albion]

But they put together the canon. I'm sure you can see this distinction.

Sure I can. The Bible was assembled by them, that's all. That is not what we were talking about and, in fact, it has nothing to do with whether it's Scripture or custom and human opinion that should be our guide to doctrine.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Bible was assembled by them, that's all.

Assembled and declared scripture. If it weren't for them you would have no New Testament.

 

[Albion]

Assembled and declared scripture. If it weren't for them you would have no New Testament.

Yes, we all know that. It doesn't change a thing because believing and trusting the sufficiency of God's word is what is being rejected by the unreformed churches...and for what?--human opinion and custom.

I'd like some day for one of these folks to actually show where God slipped up when giving us his revelation instead of them saying, over and over again, that the Bible wasn't finished until the 4th century or it took humans to recognize which books were to be included in it.

 

[Meowzltov]

that the Bible wasn't finished until the 4th century or it took humans to recognize which books were to be included in it.

It DID take humans. God often works through human beings, nicht wahr?

 

[Albion]

It DID take humans.

All you're saying is that humans recognized the divine revelation for what it is. But you and your church nevertheless choose something else to be your guide to church teachings Some argument that is!