Is Scripture nullified by CC Tradition ?


#1

In the days of the Lord Jesus the Jews had a great body of tradition that took precedence over scripture in terms of authority. Jesus never mentioned tradition except to condemn it and warn against it. Mark 7:8,9,13.

Does our Lord not condemn the Pharisees for doing precisely what the CC does today? Does the elevating of a body of human teaching to equal or be viewed as superior to scripture not nullify the scriptures altogether?

I would like to hear you on what ‘tradition’ means in the CC system and which is superior in authority, tradition or scripture. Should we test tradition by scripture or scripture by tradition?

Looking forward to hearing you.

Warmest regards

RB :slight_smile:


#2

[quote=Pastor Robert]In the days of the Lord Jesus the Jews had a great body of tradition that took precedence over scripture in terms of authority. Jesus never mentioned tradition except to condemn it and warn against it. Mark 7:8,9,13.

Does our Lord not condemn the Pharisees for doing precisely what the CC does today? Does the elevating of a body of human teaching to equal or be viewed as superior to scripture not nullify the scriptures altogether?

I would like to hear you on what ‘tradition’ means in the CC system and which is superior in authority, tradition or scripture. Should we test tradition by scripture or scripture by tradition?

Looking forward to hearing you.

Warmest regards

RB :slight_smile:
[/quote]

We as Christian are subject to the Word of God. How we understand this is what divides us.

To a Catholic the Word of God is both Tradition and Scripture. To a Protestant the Word of God is Scripture only.

The Apostles passed on their teachings in both written and oral form. The written form is Scripture, while the oral form is Tradition.

If one were to investigate the Early Church Fathers, one would come away with this understanding of Scripture and Tradition. The whole idea of Sola Scriptura was foreign to Christian thought up until the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Peace

P.S.

Here are some threads I started on this same issue:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=36797

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=28413


#3

[quote=Pastor Robert]In the days of the Lord Jesus the Jews had a great body of tradition that took precedence over scripture in terms of authority. Jesus never mentioned tradition except to condemn it and warn against it. Mark 7:8,9,13.

Does our Lord not condemn the Pharisees for doing precisely what the CC does today? Does the elevating of a body of human teaching to equal or be viewed as superior to scripture not nullify the scriptures altogether?

I would like to hear you on what ‘tradition’ means in the CC system and which is superior in authority, tradition or scripture. Should we test tradition by scripture or scripture by tradition?

Looking forward to hearing you.

Warmest regards

RB :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Scripture actually confirms Tradition. For example in Matt2 Christ fullfills a Tradition when he rides on the ***. It says “that what was said would be fullfilled.” That is a clear support for tradition.

Further, The Apostles did not use scripture in Acts15 to make the decision of whether gentiles needed to be circumcised to be Christians.

Paul also says, “Hold fast to the traditions handed down to you whether by epistle or by word of mouth.” Paul also calls the Church, “The Pillar and ground of Truth”. He does not say this about scripture.

Jude also mentions stories from non-scriptural books like the “Assumption of Moses”. That certainly can not be concieved as supporting Sola Scriptura.

Further, the fact that the Church predates the NT, is proof in itself that the authority of the Church is no less than that of scripture.

Jesus tells his apostles to listen to what the high preist says because he sits on the seat.

Jesus in Matt18 leaves the authority to the Church, not to some books.

I think that is good enough for now.


#4

[quote=Pastor Robert]In the days of the Lord Jesus the Jews had a great body of tradition that took precedence over scripture in terms of authority. Jesus never mentioned tradition except to condemn it and warn against it. Mark 7:8,9,13.

Does our Lord not condemn the Pharisees for doing precisely what the CC does today? Does the elevating of a body of human teaching to equal or be viewed as superior to scripture not nullify the scriptures altogether?

I would like to hear you on what ‘tradition’ means in the CC system and which is superior in authority, tradition or scripture. Should we test tradition by scripture or scripture by tradition?

Looking forward to hearing you.

Warmest regards

RB :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture are of equal authority. Traditions have been tested by Scripture, and the canon of Scripture itself is a Tradition in itself. They are interdependant upon eachother.


#5

Pastor Roberts,

In any discussion of scripture, in a protestant forum, one tests scripture against scripture. Not to pit one verse against another, but to discover where someone has misinterpreted scripture.
People make claims, and counterclaims, and so on.
Scripture is the standard, but interpretations are always tested.

From your perspective, you will test any agaist any, for you are an individualist. For me, I trust that if I look carefully, the traditions of the Catholic Church will make the understanding of scripture clearer.

Can there be man made traditions in the Latin Rite CC?
Yes, they are called disciplines and traditions. These change, and are subject to the bible. Sometimes they need to be corrected because of abuse.

Sacred Tradition, however, is not that way. Sacred Tradition and the Bible must always agree.

Having said that, you will no doubt still desire to test Tradition against scripture, and most who are really learning about the faith will do some comparitive testing as well.

All sources must agree or the correct understanding has not been reached, and ignorance is clearly indicated. There are differences, for not all of tradition is in ink, it is life as well. (Others who have time will explain this better than I – am am out of commision for about a week).

We do not unilaterally reject one over the other any more than reject one scripture over another.

Can one prove Calvinism vs. Arminianism from the bible such that everyone will agree?

Don’t expect to do much better with the CC if you approach it the same way, by cut and paste bible slinging. It takes research and patience to understand what has really been said – and public misinformation makes the task much harder.

were talking about the same book, but we use a different ‘lanuguage’.

God bless, and I hope your conversation is fruitful.


#6

Jesus did condemn the Pharisees for some of their traditions but then we are not Pharisees; we are Christians.

What does St. Paul say about Christians and their traditions?
2I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

[size=1]15So 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)[/size]

What does St. Peter say about Christians and Scripture?[size=2]So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)[/size]

[size=2][/size]
[size=2][size=1]20[/size]First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)[/size]

[size=2][size=2]It would seem you have your answer: Since Scripture is hard to understand[/size] and easily twisted by one’s own interpretation, we should stand firm and hold to the traditions we have received and should always judge Scripture by tradition.[/size]

[size=2][size=2]Of course, if you dispute this, we can always tell it to the Church[/size], as Jesus said in Matthew 18:16, and let those who were entrusted by the Apostles and their successors, through sacred ordination and the laying on of hands, with the care of overseeing the Church, that is, to the bishops of the Catholic Church, and let them decide the matter. If their decisions based on tradition as to what and what is not Scripture can be trusted, surely their decisions based on traditions as to the proper interpretation of that same Scripture can be trusted. :wink: [/size]


#7
They quote Jesus but disregard Paul with regards to tradition. They quote Paul but disregard Jesus with regards to salvation.

#8

Non-Catholics and Protestants are also chock full of tradition. Having one wife for instance. Martin Luther said there was not enough Scriptural evidence to condemn polygamy, yet the tradition of one man-one woman in marriage sticks in those denominations firmly.

Scott


#9

I would add that in Matt2 it mentions Christ riding on the ***. It then says that Christ did this so that “what was said would be fullfilled”. It was fullfilling a oral tradition.

Also, Jude quotes some non-scriptural books. For example, he quotes the Assumption of Moses I think.

They did not use scripture in Acts15 to decide whether it was necisary for gentiles to be circumcised. If the Church was sola scriptura you would think that the first council would have used solely scripture to make its decision.

Christ gives the authority to the Church, not scripture in Matt18. He says “go to the Church”, not scripture.


#10

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Bible Alone or Bible Plus Tradition?
1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you

All or Some Tradition Condemned?
*Mt 15;3 - break commandment of God for your tradition
*Mk 7:9 - set aside God’s commandment to uphold tradition
*Col 2;8 - seductive philosophy according to human tradition

1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition
2Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep traditions
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

source: geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/biblecheatsheet.html

Also, if you’re set on rejecting all tradition, you must reject the list of books that consitutes the Bible as the canon of Scripture is not found in the Bible.


#11

I only have a glimmer of an idea on this, compared to other posters (who have done a great job).

I suppose that the loosest definition of tradition is anything done on a regular or prescriptive basis that does not have a scriptural antecedent. Maybe that’s one way of looking at it.

But, I’m not sure that always happened that way. Why were Cain and Abel offering sacrifices without a scriptural antecedent (or was there one, hmmmm…)?

There’s a book called Symbols of Judaism that has a brief but piercing analysis of ritual that gives a very rational explanation of stuff in Judaism outside of scripture. In general, they grew up together, didn’t they?


#12

Pretty much all Traditions have a scriptural support, but some of them may not be explicitly stated in scripture.


#13

[quote=Pastor Robert]In the days of the Lord Jesus the Jews had a great body of tradition that took precedence over scripture in terms of authority. Jesus never mentioned tradition except to condemn it and warn against it. Mark 7:8,9,13.

Does our Lord not condemn the Pharisees for doing precisely what the CC does today? Does the elevating of a body of human teaching to equal or be viewed as superior to scripture not nullify the scriptures altogether?

I would like to hear you on what ‘tradition’ means in the CC system and which is superior in authority, tradition or scripture. Should we test tradition by scripture or scripture by tradition?

Looking forward to hearing you.

Warmest regards

RB :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Pastor,

The short answer to your question is no. We are not elevating a body of human reasoning above the Word of God. We are using the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret the written Word of God.

Your use of the lower-case “t” in “tradition” probably doesn’t mean much to you, but as a technical term in the Catholic Church it does make a difference. The lower-case “tradition” is indeed made by people and can be changed. It is judged against the Scriptures and the upper-case “Tradition,” and if it conflicts with either it should be (and eventually is) changed. Things in the lower-case “tradition” include things like the celibate priesthood, how to receive communion (does the priest put it on your hand or in your mouth?), and the dates of various holy days.

The Sacred Tradition (with an upper-case “T”) is the authoritative teaching of the Church and interprets and sometimes expands on what is written or implicit in Scripture. There is flat-out no contradiction between the two of them (I challenge you to come up with one) and so we don’t test the one by the other or the other by the one. They simply aren’t against each other.

If I may offer an analogy, if Scripture is something akin to the Constitution of the United States, then upper-case “T” Tradition is like the Supreme Court (of years past–let’s not start a flame war on current politics), interpreting the Constitution and applying it to new situations. Without the interpretation and new applications, we might still be stoning rebellious teen-agers to death.

  • Liberian

#14

Two Points:

  1. Jesus did NOT condemn all traditions (He came to fulfill the Law, not Abolish it). He condemned only those traditions that interfered with our worship of God. For example, eating without properly cleansing oneself.

  2. I think it would be easier to “discuss” if you were to point out a Tradition that contradicts the Bible.

Thank you,

NotWorthy


#15

Okay let’s consider

The perpetual virginity of Mary.

Is it not the case that scripture cites Christ as having siblings in Mark 6v3 ?

There is one to start with :wink:

Regards

RB


#16

Scripture is enhanced and verified by Tradition.

BTW Pastor Robert,
Just exactly what is your purpose here in posting on this thread, since the Reformed Baptist board will not allow Catholics to join at all?
I know because I tried.


#17

Another issue in regards to Tradition is the assertion that Peter was the first Pope.

This I know is based on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16 which of course I as a Protestant would dispute.

What evidence is there that Peter was ever in Rome?

sincerely

RB :wink:


#18

[quote=Pastor Robert]Another issue in regards to Tradition is the assertion that Peter was the first Pope.

This I know is based on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16 which of course I as a Protestant would dispute.

What evidence is there that Peter was ever in Rome?

sincerely

RB :wink:
[/quote]

His bones are in the Basilica on Vatican hill EXACTLY where Tradition has said they were for 2,000 years.


#19

[quote=Pastor Robert]Another issue in regards to Tradition is the assertion that Peter was the first Pope.

This I know is based on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16 which of course I as a Protestant would dispute.

What evidence is there that Peter was ever in Rome?

sincerely

RB :wink:
[/quote]

See this on the CA Homepage for historical evidence:
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp


#20

[quote=Church Militant]His bones are in the Basilica on Vatican hill EXACTLY where Tradition has said they were for 2,000 years.
[/quote]

They sure are Michael thanks be to God, God keeps His promises and the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church and they haven’t:)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.