What is "Sacred Tradition" and what are its affects?

[reddogs]

Sacred Tradition is Christian tradition used as a fundamental basis of Church dogma, primarily in the Roman Catholic traditions. The church bases the doctrine on the two foundations of Sacred Tradition and the Bible (Sacred Scripture), holding that the Bible alone is inadequate for Christian teaching and must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition.
This is in contrast to many Protestant traditions, which believe that the Bible alone is an adequate and complete basis for all Christian teaching.

In the English language, "Sacred Tradition" is more likely to be used in reference to Roman Catholicism, and "Holy Tradition" in reference to Eastern Orthodoxy, although the terms are interchangeable.

The Catholic Church bases all of its teachings on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (The Bible). The teaching authority of the Catholic Church, called the Magisterium, teaches only from Tradition and Scripture.
The Second Vatican Council taught on Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium in Dei Verbum, n. 10:
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. In contrast, Holy Tradition is Christian tradition used as a fundamental basis of Church dogma for the Eastern Orthodox, and is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.
The Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.

 

[reddogs]

Here is the Catholic Churches explanation of their authority to change or amend doctrines from what is written in scripture:

The Authority of the Church as it relates to Sacred Scripture

This often comes up often in discussions of the Catholic Church, because the Church denies the doctrine of sola scriptura. The Church may be accused of putting herself above the scriptures, defining first what sacred scripture is, secondly what sacred tradition is, and third, how both should be interpreted. Essentially, that may be said to put the Church in a position above the scriptures, because the Church has licensed herself to add to and/or misinterpret scripture. This position has been referred to as sola ekklesia, the “Church alone,” and even as sola Roma (see “The Roman Catholic Controversy, by James R White, p. 80).

These two charges of adding to the scriptures that which does not belong, or dogmatically defining incorrect interpretation of scripture are not possible to prove against the Catholic Church however. Protestant criticism over the years has taken at least three forms. One is to misrepresent what the Church teaches, the second is to confuse the authoritative with the non-authoritative in the Church, and make examples of errors that persons within the Church have made in areas that are not dogmatically defined, or where individuals have erred when not speaking dogmatically for the entire Church. A third and perhaps most honest criticism, comes from those persons who make an effort to honestly understand the Catholic position on points of doctrine in scripture, and then offer alternative explanations for these same scriptural passages, and try to argue why their own interpretation is superior.

The first and second types of argumentation are of really no consequence for the Catholic (or non-Catholic) who understands the Catholic position well. Unfortunately, many Catholics are not well catechized, and it is a rare non-Catholic that really has a solid understanding of the Catholic theology. Therefore, numerous Catholics and most non-Catholics are subject to being misled by biased arguments that misrepresent major Catholic beliefs, and often history itself, regarding the occurrence of certain historical events that support the Catholic position.

The third type of argument is the only one we really need concern ourselves with, because this is the only intellectually honest type of argumentation or debate. Non-Catholics offer us an alternative explanation for the scriptures with regard to teachings of the Christian faith, such as the means by which we are saved, whether or not there is a process of purgation by which we are made perfect prior to or as we enter heaven, whether or not baptism is regenerative, whether or not we are once saved, always saved or can fall from grace, etc.
Problems for the these other positions first of all, is that there is no unity of faith on these central doctrines of salvation, and secondly, there is no authoritative basis for us to accept these interpretations either, other than our own faith in the individual’s ability to accurately interpret scripture. Working carefully from the Bible, it may seem possible to “prove” a variety of heretical doctrines. But if you find persons in these respective faiths who are quite knowledgeable about the Bible, then they might all give you quite convincing arguments from the Bible that their own arguments are the true ones. They all contain elements of truth, but are incomplete in their entirety, lacking in something, the fullness of the understanding of the faith through Christ’s Church. The real question falls back to authority. A non-Catholic may give a fairly convincing presentation of his or her interpretation of scripture, but who is to say one is right and the other is not. Everyone of them lacks the mark of Biblical authority. None of them claim to be heirs to the Chair of Peter, which Jesus so clearly commissioned in Matthew 16:18-19. Only the Catholic Church bears the apostolic mark through history, unbroken all the way back to this moment.
Does scripture teach us that sola scriptura itself, is sound doctrine? Does scripture teach that we all have the authority to definitively interpret scripture for ourselves? Why was it important for Jesus to open the eyes and minds of the disciples to an understanding of the scriptures, and to establish a living tradition in a living Church? By the way, what is “Sacred Tradition” anyway? Doesn’t the Bible condemn tradition in more than one place (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8)? The Bible condemns placing the traditions of men above the sacred traditions of God, not all tradition. Otherwise, why would we have 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.&#8221? And multiple other scripture citations regarding preservation and passing on the word of mouth teachings, that is the sacred traditions (1 Corinthians 11:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:13).
Sacred Tradition is the Word of God that was preserved and passed on in the universal Catholic Church, that which was not written down initially or explicitly in Sacred Scripture. Once the NT had been written, but before the Church had officially recognized and proclaimed which of the many period writings were the Canon of God, and organized them into the Bible, the teachings of Jesus and the understanding that some apostolic writings were “special,” continued to be preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Church. There was not universal agreement among all the Bishops of the Church, and the process of recognizing the Canon of the NT and OT both was not completed until the 4th century, but it ultimately fell to the Church to gather this information together and proclaim it unto the faithful. And once the Canon of Scripture had been recognized, the meanings and proper interpretations of many of the passages had to be preserved in within the Church and guarded against the intrusion of heresy. This the Church has faithfully done for about the past 2,000 years and will continue to do until the end of time because Jesus promised to remain with her until then (Matthew 28:20).
Getting back to sola ekklesia, let me say that the Church definitely does not place herself above scripture. The Church was empowered by God to recognize scripture. The Church does not author God-breathed Canon, but through the apostles of the NT Church, God inspired the NT (as through the prophets of the OT, God inspired and delivered the OT Canon). While it is not correct to say that the Church wrote the NT on her own, it is correct to say that God authored and delivered to us the NT through the apostles/witnesses that were within his Church. Jesus founded the Church to be his instrument on earth, guided by the Holy Spirit, to recognize Sacred Scripture, keep Sacred Tradition, and teach scripture and tradition correctly to his sheep. The Church has been empowered by Christ to recognize, deliver, and interpret his Word to his people on earth today. Only because Jesus invested the apostolic Church with this authority does the Church exercise it, and according to God’s plan, the Church will exercise it faithfully.

 

[reddogs]

Here is the Adventist view on what to base your beliefs and doctrines on:

What kinds of sources are used to base religious authority? Varied proposals are set forth, ranging from an inner mystical force (typical of several Eastern faiths), human perceptions (often preceded by rational analysis), a religious organization (typical of certain cults centered on a single leader), a combination of Scripture and church tradition (characterizing movements such as Catholicism) human experience as claimed to be under control of the Holy Spirit (as in charismatic groups), the Bible as authoritative Word of God (as claimed by conservative Protestants), and various blends of the above. Some, such as Mormons, subordinate the authority of canonical Scripture to later revelation. Of all these, Adventists have heretofore placed the Bible-the full 66 books-in commanding position. As Ellen White put it,

God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creed or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority-not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.-The Great Controversy, 595
​

It would appear that this statement comes close to being definitive. But all is not this simple. Mrs. White is not here denying value to other channels of learning; instead she is identifying the Scriptures as the sole final voice in matters of religious faith.

 

[stray bullet]

Here is the Catholic Churches explanation of their authority to change or amend doctrines from what is written in scripture:

That wasn't an explanation from the Catholic Church, btw, that was just an apologetics against Holy Tradition.

i should point out that the Church never changes, alters or removes doctrine.

Holy Tradition, as believed by the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches, is what the apostles taught. That which was written down in the form of canon is what we call 'Scripture'. Doctrine is when the Church defines Holy Tradition against some error prevailing in the Chruch at the time. Much like many of Paul's epistles were written to clear up errors for the first generation.

If you have any questions, I certainly invite you over to OBOB

 

[Sophia7]

That wasn't an explanation from the Catholic Church, btw, that was just an apologetics against Holy Tradition.

i should point out that the Church never changes, alters or removes doctrine.

Holy Tradition, as believed by the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches, is what the apostles taught. That which was written down in the form of canon is what we call 'Scripture'. Doctrine is when the Church defines Holy Tradition against some error prevailing in the Chruch at the time. Much like many of Paul's epistles were written to clear up errors for the first generation.

If you have any questions, I certainly invite you over to OBOB

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[Sophia7]

Red, do you have sources for your articles? It would probably be a good idea to post the links so that people could get a better idea of where these ideas come from.

 

[reddogs]

I will check as it was a Catholic site like this one http://catholicapologeticsofamerica..._01_catholicapologeticsofamerica_archive.html and found that text, (I guess I spend a lot of time at those), even if is from their own writings they will deny they have added or changed anything in the Bible even though their teachings on the Virgin Mary, infallibility, etc.. says otherwise.

Red


Here was one of the essays on "Tradition In The Roman Catholic Church"
Tradition plays an important role in the belief and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. For the Roman Catholic is there great comfort to be found in the idea that a particular belief or practice "has always been" believed or practiced by their Church. This is a major reason why non Catholics have such difficulty understanding how Catholics can believe and practice things that are obviously not found in the Bible. Under the Roman Catholic system, Bible authority is not absolutely necessary. The Church teaches, believes it, and practices it, therefore it is true. While a Roman Catholic, I could not understand why non Catholics were always bringing up the Bible and trying to disprove my beliefs by it. Certainly the Bible was important, but to my mind it did not present all the truth necessary. To grasp all of the truth, one had to accept both the Bible and Roman Catholic Tradition. I believed that the leaders of the church knew what was best, that they had always known what was best, and that when something new was defined and added to the tradition that it was the truth, plainly and simply. Further study has shown me that tradition is not so clear cut and obvious, actually it is rather obscure and the process whereby something becomes defined as a belief and practice of Roman Catholic tradition absolutely defines logic and sound reasoning.
What Is Tradition?
Trying to define "tradition" as it applies to the Roman Catholic Church is not as easy as it may seem. It is not a matter of merely looking in a book of Catholic belief and finding a definition. I looked in 5 different such books and found 5 different definitions. That should tell us something right at the beginning. The clearest definition I found, as well as one that encompasses the basics from the others, is from the book, The Roman Catholic Church, by John L. McKenzie, S.J. on p. 212. McKenzie states;
"Tradition can be viewed as channel and as content, to use a modern phrase. As content, it is a body of doctrine Tradition as channel thus becomes the teaching authority, the only authentic spokesman of Roman Catholic belief. Tradition can therefore be called living, for at any given moment it exists in the teaching authority."
So tradition includes not only the body of belief and practice unique to Roman Catholicism, but also involves the teaching authority of the church itself at any given time enabling it to define further traditions.
The whole idea of tradition as it is now found in the Roman Catholic Church was not defined until 1546 by the Council of Trent, and then it was done to counter the reformers of the Protestant Reformation who demanded scriptural authority for religious practices. The Council decreed:
"seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates, with an equal affection of piety, all the books of the Old and New Testaments....and also the said traditions...preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession." The Question Box, Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, p. 78).
You may have noticed in the decree by the Council of Trent that those traditions which they venerate equally with the Old and New Testaments are "preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession." That is very important. In Roman Catholicism "no proposition can be declared an article of faith unless perpetual belief in the church can be affirmed of it." (The Roman Catholic Church, p. 212). Because of this, when the Roman Catholic teaching authority defines a new tradition as an article of faith, they teach that they are merely defining something that has already been believed by the Church. The devout Roman Catholic takes great comfort from that, I know that I did. How surprised I was to discover that when solid evidence of "perpetual belief" is lacking, the Roman Catholic authorities merely fabricate it. Let me give you a few note worthy examples.
From the book, The Roman Catholic Church, p. 212, we find;
"In the definition of the Mariological dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, it was evident that literary evidence of these beliefs was lacking for the earliest centuries. The Roman Catholic concluded from the literary evidence in which the beliefs are found that the beliefs were as old, at least in an implicit form, as the church itself, and thus was enabled to declare that these articles had always been believed in the church. The Roman Church, however, does not depend solely on literary and historical evidence; it depends on its own consciousness of its belief,...In the two dogmas mentioned, it was the consciousness of perpetual beliefs which are in harmony with these dogmas and which are themselves confirmed by these dogmas."
Consider that quote. As far as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are concerned, the Roman Catholic Church admits that there is no evidence from the earliest centuries of the church that indicates that the early Christians, guided by the apostles and those who had known the apostles, believed in them. So they moved into literature from later centuries and there they believe that they found these dogmas at least implied. So they move forward on the assumption that these later century Catholics must have gotten their ideas from someplace, so that proves that the Church always believed in these two dogmas. They then define the dogmas and their definition of them acts as final proof that the church "perpetually believed" in them. In other words essentially what the Church says is; we believe it now, we wouldn't make a mistake, so that means the church has always believed it despite the fact that there is no evidence from the earliest centuries that they did. You can judge such reasoning for yourselves.
The process
What is the process whereby a tradition becomes defined and part of Roman Catholic teaching and dogma? The Roman Catholic answer demonstrates how far we must go to attempt to prove something that is not contained in God's Word. In truth, there is no set process or formula accepted and recognized by all Roman Catholic theologians. John L. McKenzie states in his book, The Roman Catholic Church, with surprising candor, the following;
"Whatever be the process, it cannot be a process of deduction. Thomas Aquinas, by what he thought flawless logic, proved that Mary could not have been immaculately conceived; even the prince of theologians had his blind spots. Duns Scotus, by an argument which does not so much defy logic as ignore it, was convinced that she was. The Roman Church does not conceive that it arrives at such beliefs by logic...Regarding both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the Roman Church, experienced a constant surging in itself toward the affirmation of these dogmas. At the risk of hypostatizing the institution, one can say that this surging, which went on for centuries before the declarations, gave the Roman Church a kind of inner compulsion to declare itself."
There you have it. Tradition, which is held with an equal degree of pious affection as is the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church, is arrived at not by logic and a reasonable consideration of the evidence, but by a constant surging within the Church itself to believe something. That is the same as saying that for a long time the church wanted to believe something, we now believe it, it must be true. Also, if we now believe it, that proves that the church always believed it.
My friends, that is just not good enough.
Greg Litmer

Is Tradition a Source Of God's Revelation?
The Catholic Church teaches that there are two sources of understanding God's revelation of His will. These are God's Word, the Bible, and the teachings and
"We find God's revelation in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition" (New Parish Catechism, p. 11). "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church....Thus it comes about that the Church does now draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence... . It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others" (Vatican II, Const. on Divine Revelation, Chp. 2, Sec. 9). "Christ did not leave his followers a religion in the sense of a 'package of clear well defined truths'...the Holy Spirit guides each generation to add it's own understanding to them...Nor did the apostles sit down and write a handbook of the Christian faith... The Church often asserted apostolic sanction for tradition and usages that could not be traced to apostolic writings...While the Bible contains God's original revelation, yet the Bible cannot be understood alone.
The Church's living tradition is necessary to understand it. None of the biblical authors had any idea of writing a book which would of itself give us all of God's revelation" (Christ Among Us, p. 166 169). "Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God ...of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe" (Catholic Belief, p. 33.)
But the Catholic Bible says: In regard to the true wisdom of God that, "God has revealed this wisdom to us through the Spirit. The Spirit scrutinizes al/ matters even the deep things of God. Who for example, knows a man's innermost self but the man's own spirit within him? Similarly, no one knows what lies at the depths of God but the Spirit of God... We speak of these, not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, thus interpreting spiritual things in spiritual terms" (I Cor 2:10 13). "May you learn from us not to go beyond what is set down, so that none of you will grow self important by reason of his association with one person rather than another" (I Cor. 4:6). "For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him" (Gal. I :8). "I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God leading everyone who believes in it to salvation, the Jew first, then the Creek" (Rom. 1: 16). "All Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work " (II Tim. 3: 16 17). "In reply he said to them: 'Why do you for your part act contrary to the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition!'...This means that for the sake of your tradition you have nullified God's Word" (Mt. 15:3, 6).
The Catholic Church teaches that Tradition is a safer and clearer guide in religious matters than the Scriptures. It teaches that "Tradition is the way Christ's Church understands and lives his teachings" (Christ Among Us, p. 167). Therefore since the "Bible cannot be understood alone" it is necessary to refer to the Traditions of the Church in order to properly understand God's will. IF this is true, WHY did the Bereans in Acts 17 11 after hearing two "official spokesman" for the church STUDY THE SCRIPTURES to see if what Paul and Silas had taught were true? Remember we will be judged by God's Word and not the traditions of men (Jn. 12:48).