Why Catholic Use Tradition

[mistletoe143]

Much of the following I lifted from a current book I am reading. It will give evidence as to why the Catholic Church (and also Orthodox Church) rely on Tradition in addition to Scripture in its deposit of faith.

"Some of the Apostles’ Disciples, men who were trained directly by one or more of the Apostles, are also known as “Fathers� of the Church. Such men are referred to as “Apostolic Fathers.� An example of this would be St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. Polycarp is also a Father of the Church. So, St. Polycarp, who was trained by one of the Apostles, is referred to as an “Apostolic Father.� The next generation of Fathers who were trained by one or more of the disciples of the Apostles, are often called SubApostolic Fathers. An example of this would be St. Irenaeus who was taught by St. Polycarp, who in turn was taught by St. John the Evangelist. Fathers who come after them are simply called Fathers.

Now, the Fathers committed much of the oral apostolic teaching to writing. As an example, the list includes of Apostolic Fathers: (1) Pope Clement of Rome (88-97 A.D. Letter to the Corinthians), (2) St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D. His Letters to the 7 Churches), and (3) St. Polycarp of Symrna (135 A.D. Second Letter to the Phillipians).

Many SubApostolic Fathers committed even more of the Oral Tradition to writing—men such as, (1) St. Justin Martyr (148-155 A.D. First Apology), (2) St. Irenaeus (189-199 A.D. Against the Heresies), (3) Tertullian (200 A.D. Demurrer Against the Heretics), St. Hippolytus (215 A.D. Apostolic Traditions), (5) St. Clement of Alexandria (202 A.D. Stromateis), and (6) St. Cyrian of Carthage (251-256 A.D. The Unity of the Catholic Church).

Today, almost no serious credentialed scholars (Catholic or otherwise) questions either the authenticity of, nor the basic dating of any of these documents.

According to the Fathers, the Traditions in these writings emanate from two authoritative sources of that which has been “Traditum� (handed on) from the Apostles; these two sources are Oral Apostolic Tradition, and the Written Apostolic Tradition. They testify that they passed both sources on exactly as they have received them.

No intellectually honest individual—who has thoroughly familiarized himself or herself with the writings of the Fathers would claim that the infant Church ever accepted the doctrine or concept of “Scripture Alone.� That very concept of Scripture Alone is totally absent from and totally foreign to the Church of the Apostolic and SubApostolic Age.

Today, there are both some confused Catholics and many non-Catholic Christians who say that “Tradition� (as the Church understands and explains it today) was an invention of the 4th and 5th century Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. A thorough reading of even the earliest Fathers will prove this.

In the second century the Gnostic heretics attempted to manipulate the understanding of many New Testament Scriptural texts to fit their doctrines. When that failed, they attacked the integrity of the Scriptures themselves. Consequently, St. Irenaeus had to deal directly with the specific issues of Tradition and Scripture.

The SubApostolic Fathers of the Church (including St. Irenaeus) invoked against the Gnostics the total “Tradition� which had been received from the Apostles through Apostolic succession of Bishops. It must be remembered that St. Irenaeus is only one teaching generation removed from the Apostles. He was a hearer of St. Polycarp, who in turn was a hearer of the Apostle John.

St. Irenaeus writes in Book Three of the five books of his Against the Heresies thus:

“When Scripture is used to demolish their Gnostic arguments, the Gnostics turn around and start accusing Scripture itself: they say that it is inaccurate and untrustworthy, that its language is ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from it by people ignorant of their secret tradition…

“But when we appeal to the Tradition that comes from the Apostles, the Tradition preserved in the Churches thanks to the succession of presbyters, they oppose tradition. They claim to be wiser than not only the presbyters by the apostles themselves, and to have discovered the pure truth…

“The Tradition of the Apostles, which had been manifested throughout the world, can be examined by all who want to see the truth. We can enumerate the bishops instituted by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors down to our own day…� (189-199 A.D.)

Thus, St. Irenaeus demonstrates that he and his contemporaries are close enough to the Apostles that they can with precision validate the accuracy of (1) the Apostolic Succession, and (2) that the apostolic Tradition of their teachings has been faithfully handed down."

Also in St. Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, he refutes the argument of “Scripture Alone� by providing the example of barbarian (illiterate) people who believe in Christ through oral tradition alone.

Just some food for thought.

Much Peace,
Mistletoe

Oh how I wished I had time to answer this, but have to leave for the airport! See you in a week

Many, many blessings to you Misletoe!

Also in St. Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, he refutes the argument of “Scripture Alone� by providing the example of barbarian (illiterate) people who believe in Christ through oral tradition alone.

Sure! If what they are taught orally is what Scripture says, they are saved by Scripture alone. Absolutely! If they are taught orally all kinds of man-made and man-decreed stuff, then it is not Scripture alone anymore.
Let us remember, that the early church did not have the New Testament yet, all they had was the Old Testament, so people then became believers of Christ by word of mouth, but it was the pure, undadulterated word - that is what matters.

[HollysMom]

Mistletoe, when you refer to Tradition, to what are you referring? Many traditions came to Christianity much later than the second century. Others, of course came as a result of these barbarians being assimilated into the church. Since I am not as educated in these matters as most people here seem to be, would you be kind enough to tell me if there is a particular set of acts that belong in this Tradition? Thanks!

[mistletoe143]

Hi Priscilla--I will address your comments when I get home later (need to refer to a couple of books). Thank you. Much Peace, Mistletoe

Hi Hollysmom,

When I talk of "Tradition," I am referring to the moral teachings of the Church (i.e., abortion is a sin, etc.), the seven Sacraments, the beliefs found in the Apostles' Creed (i.e., the nature of the Holy Trinity, etc.), and the dogmas concerning the belief in the Communion of Saints and the Virgin Mary.

I am not referring to "tradition" with a little "t" which are devotional practices that stem from the early Church and later but are not considered a deposit of faith. For example, a Catholic practice of a "novena" prayer (9 days of intense prayer) stems from the period of intense prayer between the Ascension and Pentecost, using the rosary (which is originated from praying the psalms with little pebbles, then later adapted), etc.

Hope that helps clarify things.

Much Peace,
Mistletoe

[HollysMom]

Thanks mistletoe, it makes a great deal more sense now! Sometimes understanding these things just means learning the right vocabulary.

[JM]

Alot of the catholic teaching is way off base

[HollysMom]

Jon, I'm not taking either position right now, because while there are some things that I take exception to from the Catholic position, there are some that I agree with as well. However, I would like to understand why you feel that all Catholic teachings are way off base. Would you like to share your thoughts on what you consider the Catholics' most grievous errors of faith?

[doodlebug]

There's nothing wrong with tradition, in general, but when tradition replaces thought there's a problem. I'm not suggesting in any way that is what Catholics are doing, I'm just talking of tradition in general. God wants us to be fully present in worship and if we are too afraid not to follow traditions it can detract from more spontaneous worship.

[GoldHorse]

One of the erroneous assessments made by the Jews of Jesus' time was that since He, Jesus, refuted the principles in the Tradition of the Elders, (non-Biblical and man-made principles which inculcated a sense of 'importance' since they beckoned self-worship), then He could not possibly the true Christ.

Jesus didn't hate tradition as such. But the faulty principles which were cast-iron in the clad of the Tradition of the Elders. He spent a deal of time correcting the flawed Tradition.

When tradition is non-Biblical and flawed, then it is of no use or Spiritual value. And serves only as an exercise in correcting doctrinal flaws.