How are Scripture and Tradition related in Catholic theology?

Question

Thank you!

Answer 1

Scripture and Tradition are intimately related in Catholic theology.

The Catholic Church does not use Holy Scripture as the only basis of doctrine. It could not. The early Catholic church existed before and during the time that the New Testament was written (by Catholics).

There were hundreds of Christian writings during the first and second centuries. Which New Testament writings would become official was not fully decided until about 400 AD.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church (and is guiding the church today) to make the correct choices about things like:
+ The Holy Trinity (which is also only hinted at in the Bible)
+ Going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday (which is actually directly against one of the Ten Commandments)
+ The Communion of Saints
+ Which writings include in the New Testament?

Things that are even more modern like
+ Slavery is bad. Slavery is never declared evil in the Bible. This was one of the justifications for slavery in the Confederate States.
+ Democracy is good. The Bible states that either God should be the leader of the nation like Israel before the kings or kings should be the leader, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." This was talked about a lot during the American Revolution.

This second source of doctrine is called Apostolic Tradition.

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

Sacred Tradition is a parallel stream of Revelation to Sacred Scripture, that is just as authoritative as it|


That is Tradition with a large "T" that is not to be confused with tradition with a small "t" such as the Rosary or how Mass is said|

Things such as the Assumption of Mary - body and soul - into heaven, or her Immaculate Conception, are given by Sacred Tradition| These are not in Scripture, explicitly, but they can be deduced from Scripture|

A third element is needed, in addition to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and this is the *Teaching Magisterium|*

The teaching Magisterium is the Pope and the bishops united to him, and it infallibly interprets both Scripture and Tradition|


Now this only makes sense|


In the first few decades of Christianity, it was *only* oral Tradition, as nothing scriptural was written for several decades|

*Some* but *not all* of this Christian truth was put down on paper (usually to deal with some problem in a local church), which became the 27 books of the New Testament that we have today| (but the addressing of these local problems have universal and timeless application - that is why they became part of Sacred Scripture)|

For several centuries it was contentious as to what books constituted valid Scripture - and around the year 400 several Catholic councils and a Pope decided on the canonical form of Scripture|

It was the council of Trent in the 16th century that finally ratified the fact that the 73 books of the Bible are the only and the complete canon of Scripture| This was proclaimed as dogma at that council|

So the Bible is essentially a product of the Catholic Church (Luther even admitted to this)|


A teaching Magisterium is needed too, because without a supreme court of appeal, no one could be sure of what Scripture and Tradition say, as shown by the over 35,000 Protestant denominations, that claim to be simply reading Scripture, but contradict each other on numerous points of doctrine|


Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition constitute what is known as "Public Revelation," which closed at the death of the last Apostle|

There is what is known as "private revelation" such as Fatima as given in 1917, but Catholics are not required to believe in *any* private revelation - they are bound, only, in Public Revelation, which includes the Church's teachings on Faith and Morals|






---

Answer 3

Tradition is a very strong part of Catholicism and along with scripture and Catechism make up the teaching of the church,the first Bible really did not appear until Saint Jerome translated it in AD 350,( Latin Vulgate) and so until this time tradition was all that could be relied upon,in fact oral tradition of the Gospels were part of the Apostolic tradition.

Answer 4

This is an eye-opening question my friend.

As you should already know, Catholics change the scriptures to fit their situations. I will remind you that they really do not have theology; they have what is generally called heretic rhetoric.

http://www.amaluxherbal.com/the_scandals_of_the_catholic_church.htm

Answer 5

Catholic as in Roman Catholicism? If that is the case, why not read and reread and understand the writings of St. Peter (I AND II PETER). Read and reread, till you come up to the answer of your question.

Answer 6

This is a big question You might try going to the 'horse's mouth' on this one.
http://www.vatican.va/
I would correct gnosis below in saying that the Bible did not exist in LATIN until 350. It existed right from the time of the Apostles in Greek, and Aramaic.

Answer 7

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15; RSV)

"Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church." (Dei Verbum 10)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Answer 8

I certainly 2d the suggestion of taking her to Mass. i think of that, given her age, that's maximum mandatory to permit her to proportion with you the *journey* of your faith, particularly than in basic terms the scriptures, which will nonetheless be as a rule inaccessible to her. I keep in mind as quickly as I first visited a service at a church at a youthful age, it replace right into a shifting journey that made a profound impression on me. even with 1's ideals, church homes are oftentimes suitable and effective places, so i think of it may well be useful. coach her a number of Jesus' parables too, according to danger. on the only hand, they're relaxing as memories, yet there is the added bonus that they incorporate a strongly identifiable message which with any good fortune would resonate together with her. it is likewise something which you would be able to consult from her approximately, and encourage her to proportion her own suggestions on their ethical and spiritual messages. i think of it is had to work out faith as an interactive journey. it is not something she gets purely by skill of analyzing a e book, or by skill of in basic terms being advised approximately it - it is something we live, that's a factor of who we are. So, in actuality, i think of my suggestion would be this: start up in basic terms, save it comfortable. this would be incredibly new to her, from what you have stated. to quote St. Francis of Assisi, "that's little need walking everywhere to evangelise except our walking is our preaching." stay your existence as desirable you are able to, and proportion the affection and solace you come across in it together with her. no remember if that's meant to be, she will carry on with. advantages :) (((Dana)))

Answer 9

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally important in Catholic doctrine and practice. We are often criticized for giving importance to tradition, but the Bible itself says Sacred Tradition is just as important.

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Grace and peace to you!