Sacred Apostolic Tradition

[Katholikos]

Dusty Fro wrote:

[b][color=purple]How do we know if Jesus taught the disciples things that aren't in writing if they....aren't in writing? Are you disregardng the Bible? That kind of scares me, man.

How do you know the traditions of a church if they aren't in writing, or recorded somehow? How do those things get carried down without fault without some sort of specific writing, even if it is from 100 AD or whatever? It seems like you're saying that the history of the Bible has messed up the church. As an amateur historian and writer myself, I know that having things in writing is very important to accuracy in the future.[/color][/b]

Rather than hijack the "Non-Catholics have feelings too" thread, I opened a new one so we can explore these and other questions related to Sacred Apostolic Tradition at length.

JMJ Likos

[Anna]

How do you know that Jesus taught those things that [i]are[/i] in writing?

First, you must trust the author(s).

Then, you must trust those who compiled all those writings.

Then you must trust all those who painstakingly copied those writings by hand, long before the printing press was invented, and passed them down to the next generations...

You have to trust the organization that put all those writings together, canonized them, declaring them "inspired," and bound them into a single publication, calling it "The Bible."

Who was it that did all that?

The Catholic Church.

Sooooooooooooo.

You trust her book, but you don't trust [i]her[/i]..........

Interesting.

[Anna]

Oh, also, you say that our Sacred Traditions aren't in writing...

Well, in fact, many of them are recorded in writing, by the Early Church Fathers.

It's just that the Church did not deem those writings "inspired," and therefore did not put them into The Holy Bible.

I think IronMonk has the entire collection of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, or can tell you how to find them online.

Oh, what a rich 2000 year history the Catholic Church has, and we're happy to share it!

Pax Christi. <><

[Katholikos]

Regarding your first question:

"How do we know if Jesus taught the disciples things that aren't in writing if they....aren't in writing? Are you disregardng the Bible?"

The Bible itself tells us that not everything Jesus and the Apostles taught was written down.

John 20:30-31 [i]Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book [the Gospel of John]; but 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.[/i]

John 21:25 [i]But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.[/i]

Please read the fourth chapter of Mark, which recounts how Jesus spoke in parables to the crowd, but privately with his own Apostles, and all of what he said was not written down. [i]With many such parables, he spoke the word to them, as they [the public] were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything Mark 4:33-34. [/i]
Neither all of the parables nor what he explained to his own disciples (Apostles) was written down.

If we look for instances of teaching that was not written down in the NT, we'll find that that are many. Jesus taught in his public ministry for three years. It's impossible that all of what he said could be contained in the slim volume called the New Testament.

"More than a thousand years of time separate the earliest and the latest compositions in the Old Testament." Introduction to the Old Testament, RSV.

Judaism was handed down entirely by oral tradition from the time of Abraham, c. 1850 B.C., to the time of David, around 1000 B.C., when the first of the OT writings began to take shape. Then it was another thousand years, shortly before the birth of Christ, before the last 'book' in what we have come to know as the Old Testament was written.

It was about a hundred years from the first writing in what we know now as the New Testament to the last. But many, many writings were produced by the early Church. There was no selection made among these writings as to which were "inspired" and which were not, and no authorized collection of them into a single 'book,' until the end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. The Bible was not formed until the canonization of the OT and NT, when the Church was nearly 400 years old.

That's a lot of years without a "Bible" as we know it.

The very names Old Testament, New Testament, and Bible, were given to these collections by the Catholic Church.

It's important to remember that the Bible is not a continuous book, but is a [b][i]collection[/i][/b] of writings which were produced at different times by different people, in different places, for different purposes, for different audiences. Who collected these writings? Who decided which writings were the "inspired Word of God" and which were not?

The Catholic Church canonized the Greek Septuagint writings she had inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She inherited 46 books, she canonized 46 books. The Catholic Church discerned which writings of the New Covenant were "inspired" and which were not, and called the collection the New Testament. She then put the writings of the Old Covenant together with the NT writings and named the entire collection "ta Biblia" -- the Books.

To be continued.

JMJ Likos

[Katholikos]

Way to go, Anna! :cheer:

[Katholikos]

From John A. Hardon, S.J.
Modern Catholic Dictionary

[b]TRADITION.[/b] Literally a "handing on," referring to the passing down of God's revealed word. As such it has two closely related but distinct meanings. Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the Apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ.

Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God's revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. Referring specifically to how Cristian tradition was handed on, the Second Vatican Council says, "It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their praching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received -- whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit" ([i]Constituion on Divine Revelation,[/i] II, 7).

(Etymology: Latin [i]tradidio[/i], a giving over, delivery, surrender, a handing down; from [i]tradere[/i], to give up.)
------------

Sacred Apostolic Tradition is contained in the Church's liturgies beginning from the first century, in her commentaries, in the writings of the Church Fathers, in letters or other documents, in practices handed down through the centuries, and in similar written and non-written sources.

Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture are derived from the same source -- the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ and through Him to His Apostles and to the Church which He founded. Both are the Word of God.

[b][i]So then, Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter[/i] [/b] (2 Thessalonians 2:15).


Peace be with you. Likos

[Quietfire]

Thanks Likos.

Dusty,
I was kindof taken aback by your question. Not in a haughty way, but rather more like, huh?
I can try, in my infantile mind to explain it as best I can, since this is very new to me also.
When you are at service, what does the pastor wear?
Does he wear a vestment?
Does he wear a stole?
Does he wear a chasuble?
Or simply a suit?

Why?
However he was taught. That is why he does it. It may not be in Scripture, but that doesnt make it any less important.

Let me try another way please.
This one will be [b]outside[/b] of a religion.

When you were old enough, you wanted to drive.We will use a standard as opposed to an automatic for this observance.
Did you get behind the wheel of a car and just go?
Or did someone give you lessons?
You watched someone drive for years, without knowing, you watched their hand placements and movements, were their feet were, when they would do this or that as regards to where they wanted the car to go. Plus you asked questions. So you had some basic understanding of operating a motor vehicle. But you still needed to learn how to do all that. Then you got into the drivers seat. Took your foot off the clutch and BAM! The car stalled (with a few mighty jolts)
Your trainer (parent, sibling, friend) was patient and kept explaining how it was done, and you kept practicing. Hopefully, over time you got it, right?
You get an instruction book from DMV to study for your permit but it doesnt explain [i]how[/i] to drive a vehicle. Just the technicalities of driving, the signs, the procedures, and those are important, because they contain all road rules and should be followed. But until you get behind the wheel yourself then it isnt actually driving.
It wansnt until someone showed you how, explained it to you, and allowed you to try while they were with you, that you started to understand how it was done.
[i]Its one thing to take your foot off the clutch, its another thing to do that and know exactly when to apply the gas that causes the vehicle to move in the direction you want it to go.[/i]

I could also use home constuction, or cooking as an example. But then my response here would be so long that we may miss the point. My point is that someone explained something to you to further enhance your understanding, it may not have been in a book, but that doesnt make it any less important.

[b]God cannot be contained or limited to a book.[/b] He is the author true, but all his wisdom and knowledge are not [i]limited[/i] to Scripture.
[u]He is.[/u] Infinite, all powerful, all wisdom. The NT is based on the living Church, not visa versa, the Bible came out of the Church, not the Church came out of the Bible.

Check out the thread [u]"Bible is the basis of all doctrine-T or F?"[/u] and it may help you understand better. Some good points are made there.

But one must remember that even Christ said that there was so much more that he wanted to teach but that there was not time enough.
But he did sent another. (The Holy Spirit) and does the Bible explain ALL that The Holy Spirit showed the Apostles?
Again, we cannot limit God. For God is Spirit, knows no time or space.
To answer another querie you bought up. As to instuction outside of the Scripture to the Apostles please read Mark 4:33-34. [i]"With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it, he did not speak to them except in parables, BUT he explained everything in private to his disciples.[/i]
Also check out the following..
Matthew 13:36, 15:15
Luke 8:9
and John 14:22
they show further examples of how Jesus would explain Himself to His disciples.

I hope this helps Dusty Fro.
But if you want, I can go into it in reference to home construction or cooking.

My analogies are rudimentary, yes. But I had and still have to start somewhere. Preschool is the first step.

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain myself.


Peace.

P.S. When you are ready, please [b]Take The Believer's Test.[/b]
Its rather insightful. It is here in 'debate' on its own topic.

[Dusty Fro]

All of God's glory is not going to be contained in the Bible, of course. It's words on paper. But humans are heavily dependant on language, and with the Bible, we get a better, consistant history than guesswork.

To touch on your analogy, I bet if you read a book all about driving a manual trans car, you'd do better at getting behind the wheel and going than if you received no instruction at all. It's not going to be perfect, you have to get practice. It's like life experience. When I first became a Christian, I didn't have half a clue of how to live. I was stalling all over the place. People's opinions of how I should live varied, but the Bible was always consistant. Now, I haven't read the Bible regularly for quite a while now, but I think it's the most consistant substantial material thing we have in this world. I don't really trust people to not push their own agendas with things.

On the pastor's clothes: I don't think it is important. I don't think the color or form of a church leaders garments should make a difference of his leadership skills. I appreciate pastors who dress like everyone else, because even though they're a leader, they're in the same life situations as I.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=4531"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=4531[/url]

[Katholikos]

Flowery, phatcatholic,

Thank you! Here's to you, phatcatholic, for compiling these links, and to you,
Flowery, for reposting them.

:tiphat: :cheer:

Your admirer, Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Dusty Fro' date='May 25 2004, 01:55 AM']All of God's glory is not going to be contained in the Bible, of course.  It's words on paper.  But humans are heavily dependant on language, and with the Bible, we get a better, consistant history than guesswork.

To touch on your analogy, I bet if you read a book all about driving a manual trans car, you'd do better at getting behind the wheel and going than if you received no instruction at all.  It's not going to be perfect, you have to get practice.  It's like life experience.  When I first became a Christian, I didn't have half a clue of how to live.  I was stalling all over the place.  People's opinions of how I should live varied, but the Bible was always consistant.  Now, I haven't read the Bible regularly for quite a while now, but I think it's the most consistant substantial material thing we have in this world.  I don't really trust people to not push their own agendas with things.

On the pastor's clothes:  I don't think it is important.  I don't think the color or form of a church leaders garments should make a difference of his leadership skills.  I appreciate pastors who dress like everyone else, because even though they're a leader, they're in the same life situations as I.[/quote]

Dusty, Sacred Apostolic Tradition is not "guesswork." Flowery has reminded us of the links phatcatholic provided. Please read them. You'll understand SAT much better if you'll give us a chance to explain it.

All written words must be interpreted. Jesus didn't leave us a book, He left us a Church. The Church wrote the NT. The Church is its rightful interpreter. Luther dismissed the Church's authority and put the book in its place as the only basis for faith and morals (Sola Scriptura). The lack of an authoritative interpreter of the words of the Bible has left us with thousands of competing and conflicting denominations, all based on the same 66-book cut version.

The Supreme Court is the final authority as to what the words contained in the Constitution mean. Courts all over America are where the meaning of the words written in our civil and criminal laws are argued daily. Court decisions get reversed all the time -- including the Supreme Court (the Dred Scott case is the most prominent example). All courts are fallible. The Church is not, when she speaks of faith (what we should believe) and morals (how we should behave). We have God's word on it.

Part of God's word is preserved in writing and part of it is preserved in Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

I would have no reason to believe the New Testament if the Church founded by Christ hadn't written it, preserved it, collected it from among some 200 other writings, declared it to be the inspired Word of God, canonized it, and told me to believe it.

I'm with St. Augustine: "For my part, I would not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Against the Manichaens, Chapter 5).

Oremus pro invicem.

Jay (Likos)

[Anna]

[quote name='Dusty Fro' date='May 25 2004, 03:55 AM'] To touch on your analogy, I bet if you read a book all about driving a manual trans car, you'd do better at getting behind the wheel and going than if you received no instruction at all. It's not going to be perfect, you have to get practice. It's like life experience. [/quote]
But your driving skills will be much more perfect if you take a hands-on driving course from a qualified instructor.

Reading from a book, you get an idea, but you haven't the skills or experience to fully understand it.

Same goes with the Holy Bible. Many people just read it "for themselves," and in their pride, misinterpret it.

We Catholics read the Bible, but we also [i]listen[/i] to the readings, and listen to the qualified explanations given by the Church.

Likos has already explained, quite eloquently, that Jesus didn't leave us a book, He left us a Church. The Church then compiled the book some 400 years later. For the first 400 years, the Early Christians relied upon the Sacred Traditions of the Apostles, taught straight from the mouth of Christ. Today, we rely upon the Sacred Traditions [i]and[/i] the Book compiled by the Church, the Holy Bible.

Pax Christi. <><

[Quietfire]

dusty Fro

[quote]All of God's glory is not going to be contained in the Bible, of course. It's words on paper. But humans are heavily dependant on language, and with the Bible, we get a better, consistant history than guesswork.[/quote]

What guesswork? If the master showed how it was done, and you did it for 400 years and THEN put it in a book, where's the guesswork?
In Scripture, when Jesus says "when you pray to the Father, thus therefore shall you pray..'Our Father, who art in Heaven',,," , and so on, thats what you said, right? (the Lord's Prayer, that is)
Well, how did you know to put your hands together in prayer when saying that? As opposed to touching your toes?

[quote]To touch on your analogy, I bet if you read a book all about driving a manual trans car, you'd do better at getting behind the wheel and going than if you received no instruction at all. It's not going to be perfect, you have to get practice. It's like life experience.[/quote]

And yes it is like life experience, but how many trannies would you want to really go through. We have only one life and one soul, trannies can be replaced, souls cannot.

[quote]When I first became a Christian, I didn't have half a clue of how to live. I was stalling all over the place. People's opinions of how I should live varied, but the Bible was always consistant. Now, I haven't read the Bible regularly for quite a while now, but I think it's the most consistant substantial material thing we have in this world. I don't really trust people to not push their own agendas with things.[/quote]

And I would never tell you how to live your life, the Church, as I understand can guide you, but ultimately, the decisions are yours. (God guaranteed that !)



[quote]On the pastor's clothes: I don't think it is important. I don't think the color or form of a church leaders garments should make a difference of his leadership skills. I appreciate pastors who dress like everyone else, because even though they're a leader, they're in the same life situations as I.[/quote]

It doesnt make a difference in his 'skills'. But, its amazing though, that even the vestments have a meaning (and the meaning doesnt mean they like wearing 'dresses'-he,he)

See, I still have questions Fro.
I am not afraid to ask. And many here are more than willing to answer.
But..
one must listen with thier heart...not with thier mind.

Walk by faith, not by sight.


Peace Fro.
Dutchess QF

Edited May 25, 2004 by Quietfire

[Dusty Fro]

Ok, so the Bible was compiled in 400 AD. That's a thousand some years before Luther, so the Church that compiled the Bible was MY church too, since there was no Protestantism then.

I don't fold my hands when I pray. I usually don't bow my head and sometimes don't even close my eyes. Especially not when I'm driving I believe and pray the Lord's Prayer, but prefer to pray my own way, so that my prayers are really honest with God.

I believe in a Catholic Church of believers in Christ. Same God, same Jesus, just different ways of worshipping. Believe it or not, Protestants have their own traditions (some of which I don't agree with, such as passing an offering plate, when I feel it should be as discreet as possible). I don't think we really need to be torn apart because we do things differently.

[Quietfire]

[quote]I don't think we really need to be torn apart because we do things differently.[/quote]

Oh, I totally agree with that. You will not get an arguement there.


And to be honest, since I was were you are, it would do no good to do that.
Maybe my situation is different because I was baptised Catholic. ?
But although I was not raised Catholic (Dad was, Mom is Southern Baptist) we were raised to respect everybody.

Im still learning too, and I know I keep saying that.
Its just important for me to let you know that.
We are all on a spiritual journey here.
But I would like to think we are all going in the same direction, just in different cars.


Peace.