Tradition and the Bible

[Josiah]

.


Tradition:

Appreciate that "tradition" is understood in VERY different ways. And this is part of the "problem" when discussing this: we often mean something very different when we use the word.


Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL to it.

"The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

"Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95

"Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113




Classic Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in 3 distinct ways:


1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem yet under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God); our understanding of Scripture is under Scripture. Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. While this is typically a matter of the correct interpretation of Scripture, it is not exclusively that. For example, how do we know what Books ARE and are NOT Scripture, since no verse in the Bible states this? It is Tradition in this sense. There are other things, too. For example, every Christian holds that Jesus never married. No verse actually says that, but it has been the universal, historic consensus of God's people. So while MOST of this is a matter of what the verbatim written words of Holy Scripture means, it's not entirely limited to such.


2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confession." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination (or family of them). For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism, etc. This is "OUR tradition." Protestants understand what Catholics call "Tradition" in this sense; often it is THEIR tradition.


3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community. We celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. We usually publicly worship on Sundays. These are examples of "tradition" in this third sense.



"Evangelical" definitions

Generally, "Evangelicals" use this term negatively, ridiculing it as something "Catholic" and something clearly not taught in Scripture (and often contrary to it). Something that displaces what they hold the Bible teaches.

You will find some "Evangelical" Protestants who say something like, "I accept nothing that's not stated in the Bible." But ask them for the verse that tells us the content of the Bible and you'll get crickets; their whole rubric depends on Tradition telling them what is and is not Scripture. And they'll shout, "This verse MEANS...." and echo the interpretation of their denomination/faith community, imposing tradition (in the second sense).


Note...

There's a balance and tension here.... and a distinction: God's words (in Scripture) are inerrant (and cannot be challenged), man's words are accountable; that alone makes Tradition under Scripture and not equal to it. Luther quoted a LOT from the Early Church Fathers and from the Ecumenical Councils; he was enormously interested in the history of Christianity, the Ecumenical Creeds and in the consensus of Christians. He insisted that God's promise to lead and teach US is a promise to US, not to any individual (or individual denomination). BUT he argued that men can be wrong. Luther and Calvin did not throw out Tradition, they had no intention of reinventing the wheel, in starting something new, in revolution... they were reformers. There's a tension.... a balance.... an order... NOT easy to rightly attained. The later, "radical" reformers (Evangelicals) were revolutionaries, insisting Tradition is bad and that Christianity needed to be reinvented - but in the process, just substituted THEIR tradition for historic/ecumenical Tradition.



Blessings!


- Josiah





.

 

[Messy]

-

 

[Lamb]

Interesting read, @Josiah! I guess I never thought about it that way.

 

[living name]

.



Don’t you consider when that as St. Paul was writing to the church of the Thessalonians

Paul was commanding “”” ☞ the Thessalonians to withdraw themselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

How can everything the Roman Catholic Faith System teaches as Oral - Tradition be defined in what St. Paul was commanding to the church of the Thessalonians ?

Even the very written words of the Bible that are designed for a specific group of people, a specific church or written for a culture of society can have ways in which these scriptures apply to future readers in a very different atmosphere and manner. - or not even apply to anyone else - -

HOW DO CATHOLICS KNOW WHAT ST. PAUL WAS COMMANING when he wrote a single letter to the church of the Thessalonians commanding them to WITHDRAW FROM DOING SPECIFIC UNMENTIONED THINGS : DISORDERLY AND SIINFUL THINGS : - then - after telling them to stop being DISORDERLY - he then writes to remind them to follow the good and proper TRADITIONS

☞ Paul is not creating a Roman Catholic institution of oral tradition

St. Paul writing to the church of the Thessalonians about the TRADITIONS that he had given to them - NOT WRITING TO ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT HISTORY for others to take it upon themselves and imagine or invent and claim spiritual inspiration and insight as to what “” TRADITIONS “” he rebuked and corrected them from sin and DISORDERLY conduct.

St. Paul had given specific TRADITIONS - SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND PORPOSED for - specifically - to the church of the Thessalonians. St. Paul physically went himself - to the literal church of the Thessalonians - there, to these specific people he presented a specific set of traditions appropriated for them specifically in Thessalonia concerning DISORDERLY SIN and Perversity - in this specific church

☞ . . . We have no idea what "" DISORDERLY conduct "" that was being done in the church of the Thessalonians to cause Paul to write reminding them of the specific and exact corrective traditions

- St Paul was not writing to anyone outside of the Thessalonian Church, this is not something that St Paul is explaining as something that is being intended as a Catholic ramp or runway or Catholic foundation to institute a new way that he will further the future teachings to other churches and other people for all eternity !


Paul did not mention what these traditions contained nor mentioned having provided these to any other church except directed to be directly to people in Thessalonia - St. Paul writing to the church of the Thessalonians -


✒ the Catholic Faith demands that the Authors of Scripture were inspired to NOT include Roman Catholicism in the scriptures and instead the Holy Spirit inspired these Authors to STOP writing the bible and then to precede to begin making secret oral relationships with selected individuals about the Catholic Faith System - to a few selected individual by word of mouth

unfortunately Roman Catholics are unable to provide any documents written by Catholics to support the Purgatory teachings until nearly 200 years after the scriptures were written - which was around 150 years after the Apostles had died.

In Fact - - Catholic Pope Peter never wrote about purgatory , nor did the Pope Linus after him nor did the any of the next 62 Popes write or document a single word in writing about Purgatory . The very first Pope to mention Purgatory in any written documentation was - Pope Gregory the Great -- 540 - 604

this is 400 - 500 years after the Apostles and Disciples had died and for 500 years after the new testament was written the first 63 Popes have not written a single word and probably most likely have said next to nothing about the oral tradition of Purgatory.

✒ The truth is it was not until a Roman Catholic named " Jacques Le Goff " whom was the very first man to write down anything regarding anything whatsoever SUBSTANTIVE pertaining to the details defining anything whatsoever to defining the "birth of purgatory", . as the conception of purgatory - as a physical place,

a Roman Catholic named "" Jacques Le Goff who lived from 1170 - 1200, this man - produced the very first written documentation that defined purgatory - - expounding, building and adding doctrine and details upon previous thoughts written by earlier Roman Catholics

this means that Roman Catholics do not have written documentation to define or that resembles anything that is presented as what Purgatory exists as today, until 1000 years after the Scriptures were written..... the details, laws, rules, full scope and understanding of Catholic Purgatory remained ORAL TRADITION / UNWRITTEN and not written documented as X CATHEDRA FROM THE CHAIR OF SAINT PETER - for over 1000 years

 

[living name]

.
furthermore


Imagine 1000 years passing with no Papal writings and written details and fundamentals about a teaching of doctrine - today we see the complete written picture, complete understanding and a clear explanation of what Catholic Purgatory means. We do not see this in written documents until over 1000 years after Jesus Christ ↩

this is the reality pertaining to Purgatory. Tradition are simply man made personal feelings and perspectives that can changed, be altered, adapted and can completely be forgotten and perverted and turned against God himself. Traditions are not intended for all mankind - but the word of God / Scripturas are forever and will not pass or be changed

Mar 7:13 The word of God can be made of none - effect through tradition ↩ ↩

Col 2:8 Man can be ruined and spoiled and destroyed by tradition ↩ ↩


in : 2Th_3:6 : - St. Paul is not defining and demanding that ORAL TRADITION be administered to anyone outside of the specific group of people from a specific location, time and purpose wherein he personally physically visited these people and presented the traditions to them pertaining specificaly to having already gone and visited the church and rebuked and taught the church relating to their environment and conditon specifically .

It is assumption to claim that these traditions were even mentioned to anyone else, they could have been private traditions, personal to a specific group of individuals and designed for their situation and environment –

in : 2Th 3:6 : St. Paul is not demanding that " ORAL TRADITION " has anything to do with the plan of God designed for spreading and distributing the Gospel - but St. Paul makes it clear

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Roman Catholics simply continually fail to provide any written evidence that the Catholic Faith System was taught by ORAL TRAITION from the Apostles and Disciples - whom never mentioned the Catholic Church Faith System in a single passage of written scripture but the facts and evidence shows written documentation and writings produced by the Roman Catholic as defining the Church teaching in gradual stages, progressive layers, development, argumentative theology building upon consensus and chance. Catholic Traditions are not something we find as completed, descriptivness or as full operations of the faith - as clearly laid out as descriptions in documentation and fully understandable concepts of faith

✣ ... There are no written documents by the Catholic Church Fathers in Rome at an early stage = but we see everywhere the evidence of written documentation that is being developed, treated, built, developed, through vague mentions of surface theory - remaining as word of mouth gossip, hearsay and opinion of diversity , for hundreds, or, a thousand years before the complete concept and description of the teaching is committed to a written record - as it is also shown to be debated and developed in layers of conception in progressing stages of tradition defining full scope of the faith system. ↩ as fullness of Catholic Traditon.

Most of the Catholic Faith System we see today is not mentioned in any documentation for over 1000 years after the Scriptures were inspired - Islam developed exactly in this very same way - as developed, progressing in layers and debate and evolution

is not Catholicism the very description and definition of ” theory of evolution “ displayed in its perfect form? ?

 

[Lamb]

@living name is not Trinitarian and will no longer be responding in this thread since only those who adhere to the Nicene Creed and believe in the Trinity can post in this section of the forum.

 

[Josiah]

Getting back to the issue....




Tradition:

Appreciate that "tradition" is understood in very different ways. And this is part of the "problem" when discussing this: we often mean something very different when we use the word.


Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL to it.

"The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

"Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95

"Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113




Classic Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in 3 distinct ways:


1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem yet under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God); our understanding of Scripture is under Scripture. Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. While this is typically a matter of the correct interpretation of Scripture, it is not exclusively that. For example, how do we know what Books ARE and are NOT Scripture, since no verse in the Bible states this? It is Tradition in this sense. There are other things, too. For example, every Christian holds that Jesus never married. No verse actually says that, but it has been the universal, historic consensus of God's people. So while MOST of this is a matter of what the verbatim written words of Holy Scripture means, it's not entirely limited to such.


2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confession." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination (or family of them). For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism, etc. This is "OUR tradition." Protestants understand what Catholics call "Tradition" in this sense; often it is THEIR tradition.


3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community. We celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. We usually publicly worship on Sundays. These are examples of "tradition" in this third sense.



"Evangelical" definitions

Generally, "Evangelicals" use this term negatively, ridiculing it as something "Catholic" and something clearly not taught in Scripture (and often contrary to it). "Tradition" is seen as something that displaces what they hold the Bible teaches.

You will find some "Evangelical" Protestants who say something like, "I accept nothing that's not stated in the Bible." But ask them for the verse that tells us the content of the Bible and you'll get crickets; their whole rubric depends on Tradition telling them what is and is not Scripture. And they'll shout, "This verse MEANS...." and echo the interpretation of their denomination/faith community, imposing tradition (in the second sense).


Note...

There's a balance and tension here.... and a distinction: God's words (in Scripture) are inerrant (and cannot be challenged), man's words are accountable; that alone makes Tradition under Scripture and not equal to it. Luther quoted a LOT from the Early Church Fathers and from the Ecumenical Councils; he was enormously interested in the history of Christianity, the Ecumenical Creeds and in the consensus of Christians. He insisted that God's promise to lead and teach US is a promise to US, not to any individual (or individual denomination). BUT he argued that men can be wrong. Luther and Calvin did not throw out Tradition, they had no intention of reinventing the wheel, in starting something new, in revolution... they were reformers. There's a tension.... a balance.... an order... NOT easy to rightly attained. The later, "radical" reformers (Evangelicals) were revolutionaries, insisting Tradition is bad and that Christianity needed to be reinvented - but in the process, just substituted THEIR tradition for historic/ecumenical Tradition.



Blessings!


- Josiah





.