Sacred Tradition

[reyb]

[indent][color="#0000FF"]In the apostolic preaching. . . [/indent]
[indent]76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, 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 at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34 [/color][/indent]
[indent][color="#0000FF"]. . . continued in apostolic succession [/color][/indent]
[indent][color="#0000FF"]77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36 [/color][/indent]

[indent]What is Sacred Tradition really meant? Are writings of early church fathers can be considered Sacred Tradition?[/indent]

[kafka]

Sacred Tradition is the Deeds wrought by God in salvation history. It is the salvific Deeds of God especially of Christ. The preeminent Deed of God in salvation history is the suffering and death of Christ on the Cross. All Deeds of God lead up and proceed from that one Deed of Christ.

Sacred Tradition is the primary font of Divine Revelation. Without Sacred Tradition there would be no Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition as the Son proceeds from the Father. Sacred Tradition is infallable simply because it is the Deeds of God.

I will send you a personal message to a link to an article I find interesting.

[reyb]

[indent]Thank you[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]Kafka,
I decided to put it here. Thank you again.[/indent]
[indent][url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm"] New Insights into Sacred Tradition [/url][/indent]

[Katholikos]

[b]A word of caution:[/b]

Please be aware that this article, New Insights Into Sacred Tradition, is written by a layman, Mr. Conte. It is not the official teaching of the Church. You'd be better served reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the documents of Vatican II, Dei Verbum, for the definition of Sacred Tradition. Mr. Conte acknowledges this himself and posts this disclaimer at his website:

[b]"Please note that most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic.
Also, many of the ideas expressed on this site are a matter of pious disagreement among faithful Catholics."[/b]

Mr. Conte says, for example, that Sacred Tradition is not oral. St. Paul says "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either [u]by word of mouth[/u] or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV).

It is always better to get the teaching of the Church straight from the Church's mouth.

If you want to read more in depth about Sacred Tradition, I recommend [i]The Meaning of Tradition[/i], by Father Yves Conger, OP, translated from the French, with a foreword by Avery Cardinal Dulles, published by Ignatius Press. Father Conger was an advisor at Vatican Council II.

To Father Conger, Sacred Tradition is "the living self-communication of God. It's content is the whole Christian reality disclosed by Jesus Christ . . . It is transmitted not only by written and spoken words, but equally by prayer, sacramental worship, and participation in the Church's life." Tradition is the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing life of the Church. It is literally a "handing on," referring to the passing down of God's revealed word: [b]all[/b] of Divine Revelation, passed on from one generation of believers to the next. Sacred Tradition is that part of God's revealed word that is not written down in Sacred Scripture.

Likos

[reyb]

[indent]I thought Ronald L Conte Jr is a theologian of Roman Catholic Church. Thank you for your info. [/indent][indent]Nevertheless, it is still a food for thought.[/indent]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='reyb' post='1336725' date='Jul 21 2007, 07:00 PM'][indent]I thought Ronald L Conte Jr is a theologian of Roman Catholic Church. Thank you for your info. [/indent][indent]Nevertheless, it is still a food for thought.[/indent][/quote]

Here's what Conte says about himself:

QUOTE

My name is Ronald L. Conte Jr. (a.k.a. Ron Conte)
I am a layperson, a practicing Roman Catholic, a disciple of Christ.
I am the editor and owner of CatholicPlanet.com.
I write and publish Catholic theology books, booklets, and articles.
I have a lowly bachelor's degree in philsophy/theology from Boston College.
I am a Roman Catholic theologian, faithful to the teaching authority of the Church.

END QUOTE

Conte is a self-appointed "Roman Catholic theologian," but he plainly does not speak for the Church and says so himself on his website: "[u]Please note that most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic[/u]." IOW, he's writing his own opinion. He admits that he has no more than a bachelor's degree. I wouldn't rely on him as a "theologian." Anyone can operate a website on the Internet and call themselves anything they wish. He says he is "faithful to the teaching authority of the Church" but his writings do not reflect that. One has to be careful to read authentic, official Church teaching to be sure it's straight-arrow Catholic." The Catechism and Vatican II documents are on line at many sites, including at the Vatican website, vatican.va. Conte's article on Sacred Tradition is not the teaching of the Church. He's a wannabe "Roman Catholic theologian."

Peace, Likos

[kafka]

[quote name='reyb' post='1336725' date='Jul 21 2007, 07:00 PM'][indent]I thought Ronald L Conte Jr is a theologian of Roman Catholic Church. Thank you for your info. [/indent][indent]Nevertheless, it is still a food for thought.[/indent][/quote]

He is a Roman Catholic Lay Theologian. And he does have some deep insights into the Faith. I disagree with that comment above Katholikos that he is a "wannabe."

[Katholikos]

[quote name='kafka' post='1340624' date='Jul 25 2007, 03:49 PM']He is a Roman Catholic Lay Theologian. And he does have some deep insights into the Faith. I disagree with that comment above Katholikos that he is a "wannabe."[/quote]

Sorry, but Conte is not an accredited theologian. No institution of higher learning certifies that he has completed the required studies and earned his credentials as a theologian. No one calls him a theologian except himself. He is honest in telling his readers himself that his "theological writings" are "speculative" and that his education is lacking. His "deep insights" are a mixture of Church doctrine and personal opinion. Read him if you wish, but be aware that "Roman Catholic theologian" is a title he gave himself. His writings may be misleading. The one on Tradition certainly is! No wonder he titles it, "New Insights."

I just wanted to call attention to his lack of training in theology as a warning to others. He's never been employed as a theologian, nor would he be since he lacks the necessary credentials. He's apparently self-employed. The Internet is a dangerous place, and not everything that is claimed on the Net is true. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Those who wish to get their theology from him are certainly free to do so. But I urge those who read him to compare his writings to the official teaching of the Church.

Peace be with you and with all who post at Phatmass,

Likos

[kafka]

since when does a person need to be accredited or for that matter employed in order to be a Theologian? How many people were not accredited or employed yet Theologians in a real way.

And he did have formal training. I disagree that his article on Tradition is misleading. It delves deeper into the meaning of it. I think you are tending to magnify the transmission of Tradition too much while losing the meaning of Tradition itself. Anyhow I wouldnt know for sure and I am not about to get into a big debate over it.

I respect your piety and you do make good points. The internet can be dangerous, but anyone with common sense should know not to believe everything they see on the net.

[Katholikos]

The following is an excerpt from Conte's website, catholicplanet.com.

QUOTE

[b]A Catholic Timeline for Future Events[/b]

Please note that events listed as occurring in the same year are not listed in any particular order. This timeline is only a brief summary! There are many more predictions and many more details in my free ebook The Bible and the Future of the World.

2008: Hilary Clinton elected U.S. President

2009: Hilary Clinton changes her mind about abortion and become pro-life. The year 2009 will be a year of great success for the pro-life cause.

2009: Pope Benedict XVI suggests building three places of worship in Jerusalem, a Temple, a Church, and a Mosque, so that these three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, can worship in peace in the City of Peace. “For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid.” (Mk 9:6).

2009/2010: the beginning of the events described in the Book of Revelation, the first part of the tribulation, which includes the Day of Repentence and the Day of Healing.

** The first part of the tribulation is from 2009/2010 to 2039/2040 A.D.

[...]

2009 or 2010: Pope Benedict XVI dies. The next pope is elected, whom St. Malachy calls 'Peter the Roman.' He is not the last Pope.

2010: World War III begins. At the start of the war, the Arabs nuke New York City (in 2010). The war continues for many years; millions upon millions will die. World War III is the first of the Seven Seals and the first of the Four Horsemen (in the Book of Revelation).

2011/2012: the Arabs begin to threaten, attack, invade, and conquer territory in Europe.

[...]

2012: When the city of Rome is half in ruins, then the Pope will be a holy martyr. As the Arab forces approach Rome, the Pope flees Vatican City, at night, carrying his own bag on his shoulder, accompanied by clergy, and guarded by soldiers. They escape Vatican City, but are pursued by Arab soldiers. The Pope (Peter the Roman) is captured by the Arabs. (The Arabs capture Rome and burn the churches there; they also burn Vatican City.) The Pope is taken to Syria, where an unjust sentence is handed down against him. They kill the members of the clergy captured with him, along with clergy from Syria, while the Pope watches. Then they put out his eyes, so that it is the last thing he sees. They take him to Iraq, where he is imprisoned and where he eventually dies, with no one to rescue him.

2012 or 2013: the Allies recapture Rome. It will be hailed as a great victory, but the great victory turns into a terrible defeat. Because the Arabs could not hold the city, they destroy it with a nuclear weapon in July of 2013.

2013: the great Famine of the 21st century begins. It lasts until the early 2020's A.D. It is an unusual famine because it is most severe in wealthy developed nations, and much less severe in poorer less developed nations. Europe will be most severely afflicted; the U.S. will also be affected. The great Famine of the 21st century is the third of the Seven Seals and the third of the Four Horsemen (in the Book of Revelation).

[...]

2020 - 2023: all Christians will be united in one renewed, restructured Catholic Church with 7 parts. The great famine ends. The people rejoice, but the Arab and Muslim leaders are angry at this unification of Christians.

early 2020's: After unification, the Church elects a Pope who is not Roman Catholic; he will be one of the converts from Protestantism and a member of one of the other of the 7 branches of the Catholic Church.

END QUOTE

And it goes on (and on and on). "Theologian" Conte's website is full of this stuff.

I rest my case. Over and out.

Likos

[kafka]

Katholikos,

I dont see your case. You quoted the above out of context. He wrote a book and many articles on Eschatology. One would have to make a study of all his works in order to understand the above dates/conclusions. I dont see you quoting the above as any sort of valid argument for a debate.

Still at the same token his writing is speculative.

[Katholikos]

Conte needs a doctor to tend to his mental health. Believe anything you wish. But please don't label Conte's writings "Catholic."

[Paddington]

The future looks exciting.

[reyb]

[indent]I hope whatever differences regarding authority and validity of Mr. Conde's insight on Sacred Tradition is immaterial to our topic. The Roman Catholic Church even instructed every believer to study it. Therefore, let us consider New Insight on Sacred Tradition as Mr. Condes’ self-analysis. I think that is good.

I am not for Katholikos or against Kafka and vice-versa. I am just saying let us used the writings of the Roman Catholic itself in the web [url="http://vatican.va"]http://vatican.va[/url] while we are studying the Sacred Tradition -Whether it is really from the Apostles or not. [/indent]