Why Does The Catholic Church Accept Traditions? [Ecumenical]

Q. Tradition is condemned in the Bible so why does the Cathlic Church base some of its doctrines on it?

A. Some people think the verses below condemn tradition and therefore, the Catholic Church.

Matthew 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
Mark 7: 9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions!
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

However, in scripture there are two types of tradition–human and apostolic. Some human traditions are bad because they oppose the true faith. Jesus condemns human tradition that negates the commandments of God and St. Paul warns the Colossians about deceptive philosophy based upon human tradition.

But, then in the verses below we see St. Paul commending and exhorting his readers to hold firmly to the traditions that he had taught them.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

The Catholic Church follows St. Paul and continues to hold to and teach the Tradition received from the apostles.

To clarify: In the Catholic Church what is meant by Tradition with a capital “T” or when we speak about the authority of scripture and Tradition it is nothing less than the Teaching of the Apostles. This is the Faith as taught and handed down from the apostles of Jesus Christ. It does not refer to anything less. Scared Scripture itself is Apostolic Tradition. The New Testament contains the Teaching of the Apostles or Tradition .

The Canon of Scripture is also a Tradition since none of the sacred authors were inspired to write a Table of Contents for the Bible.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

The traditions taught to the apostles have been changed. In other words, subsequent generations didn't "hold fast" to those traditions. Some of these tradition no longer held by the majority of "traditional" Christians include observing Jesus Christ's holy days and his sabbath.

Christ taught from a foundation of scripture. His beef was with those whose tradition supplanted or replaced the scriptures he inspired to be written.

In the gospel account provided in the article, you also really need to look at the specific custom that was involved.

I don't have time, this morning, to do much more typing. But the upshot is that the custom was to dedicate one's inheritance to the temple, thus placing it off limits for caring for parents. This custom ended up violating the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue.

Thus, in the context of what was written, we should acknowledge that people who obey the traditions of men OVER AND ABOVE the Word of God are in error and sin against God.

The same holds true to this day: little "T" traditions that go against the Word of God are in error and bring people to sin.

However, what is identified as big "T" Sacred Tradition, being the orally passed-down Word of God, can not contradict Scripture, the written Word of God. I challenge somebody to show where it does.

Just what "orally passed-down Word of God", that does not contradict Scripture, are you talking about? Could you let us know exactly what those "oral words" are? I have yet to see those "words", although thebig "T" is referred to quite often.

Denzinger, H. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Loreto: 1957 (ed 2002).

The above is the best source I have seen.

The way that "Big T" Tradition actually works is that we have dogma, handed down from the apostles through their teaching. If you think about it, the original churches established by the apostles had no Sacred Scripture. They had what they were taught by an apostle or an evangelist. These churches passed on what they were taught from generation to generation. In some cases, an apostle would write a letter to a particular church. The letter would provide additional information, would talk about some error in practice or in doctrine that had crept into that church, or provide some encouragement in times of trouble. The writings of the apostles were so highly revered that these letters would be passed among the various churches. Prior to the end of their lives, we are aware of two accounts of Jesus' life that were penned by apostles, to preserve key events in His life for future generations. Those two apostles were +Matthew and +John. The other two gospels were written by men accompanying the apostles +Peter and +Paul. We know that the gospels are not a complete record of Christ's life: +John, in fact, says as much in his gospel account.

So do we know what all the apostles taught the Church in the beginning? What we do know is what was recorded by Luke in the Acts and what was communicated to the various particular churches in the epistles. That's all we know from Scripture. Do we KNOW, based on Scripture, how the apostles baptized? We just know that they baptized people with the Lord's baptism.

The point I am trying to get at was that it was ALL Tradition in the beginning. When the apostles decided to write, or have somebody write, the Gospel account, a portion of that Tradition got captured into writing and became Scripture. When an apostle decided to write a letter to a particular church, either teaching something new, amplifying something that had already been taught, to reprove the church for some inappropriate behavior, to encourage the church in times of trouble, etc., those letters, in time, became Scripture.

So we know Christ was born, He lived, had His ministry, went through His Passion, He Died, and was raised primarily from Tradition, because that's what the early Church had.

The same thing with all of the dogma of the Faith.

Thanks be to God, the majority of the apostles' teaching is captured in Sacred Scripture. Thanks be to God, the majority of that which is not explicitly captured is supported by Scripture. Thanks be to God, the minority that is not caputured or supported in at least in harmony with the Scriptures. So that 2,000 years after it happened, I can go back and look for myself and see.

I know that this is a big long dissertation for a simple answer, but I wanted to take the time to convey the above.

There are a few examples of things that we believe that are not contained in Scriptures. It is that kind of belief that we will say "is in Sacred Tradition, not Sacred Scripture..." but it's really a misnomer, as it ALL was in Sacred Tradition originally.

One example of a Big "T" only belief is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. We know from Scripture, that it could happen (see Enoch and Elijah for examples), therefore, it is not offensive to Scripture. But we know from Tradition that it did happen. (If you think about it, it couldn't, in fact, be contained in Scripture, as the historical accounts of the apostles closed out prior to the death of the Blessed Virgin. In fact, historical accounts of the apostles, at large, really closed out just after the Council of Jerusalem, when Mary would have been only in her mid forties to early fifties, hardly in her ancient of days. The remainder of the Acts of the Apostles was really just a narrative of +Paul's evangelistic journeys)

I hope the overly long answer gave you what you were looking for.

As a Christian of the Wesleyan Methodist variety, I believe that tradition definitely has a role in our faith. I'm certain that we view it differently than do Catholics, but I thought I'd post what I've come to believe about tradition. I would think there would be some similarities in views since John Wesley was an Anglican. (Of course, I'm referring to "traditional" (ha!) Methodist belief, not the liberal theology that has infiltrated some of our seminaries, publishing houses, and professed by some of our clergy.)

The United Methodist Book of Discipline states that "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture, however, is primary, revealing the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation." Some scholars have called this the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, though that term could lead you to think that each "leg" of the quadrilateral is equal, where in fact, what Wesleyans believe is that Scripture is the centerpiece of belief. Here is a quote from Wesley: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree" (Works, X, 75). Wesley believed that Christians should be aware of the full force of Christian tradition, for it supplies a link through history with Jesus and the apostles, drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God.

Of course, as a child of the Reformation, Wesley was also sometimes suspicious of tradition, and again, always believed it should not replace or supplant, but instead, help our understanding of Scripture, which is the primary source of our knowledge of Christian faith.

In my own life as a Christian, I see traditions influencing me all the time. But I always try to compare these to Scripture. (I understand the idea of Scripture being part of Christian tradition.) Not all traditions seem to withstand a Biblical test. (I won't go into particular ones here, for I don't wish to be argumentative.) I think where I would part from the Catholic view of tradition is that though I see it as important, I don't believe in a centralized interpretation of them. I believe that it is possible for the church to have erred in some ways. But there you have it. My Protestant roots are showing! I do indeed believe Christians can, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, interpret Scripture. But this shouldn't be divorced from the influence of the rich history of Christianity. (I hope this all made some sense. My thoughts have been a bit scattered lately.)

This viewpoint is probably where this old joke came from: Catholics aren't too sure about Methodists because they seem too Baptist; Baptists are suspicious of Methodists because they're, well, too Catholic. :)

During my time in the service, I had to pull "deployed first sergeant" for a few deployments. One of my jobs was to make sure that chaplains came to visit and that they were taken care of when they were on our remote radar sites.

'course as a Catholic, I was prejudiced toward Catholic chaplains, but I will tell you, in my experience, the Protestant chaplains that I saw out in the field who best reflected the love of Christ in their hearts were the Methodists. (I had to escort a couple of them over the months) They really seemed to understand the pastoral ministry far better than other Protestant denominations' chaplains. As a result of that, my opinion of Methodists is extremely high.

Really and truly, not too Baptist for my tastes. Sorry to disappoint.

And btw, nice post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.