Skip to comments.On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Posted on 11/11/2006 8:16:16 AM PST by annalex
click here to read article
That question is an oxymoron. First it is a Tradition, not tradition, and secondly, the Schism of 1054 did not affect the Tadition, which lives in both particualr Catholic Churchs, East and West, both being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fact that these two communities are not in communion is a different issue.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
As you can see, your church is lying to you...You can KNOW you have eternal life (salvation) from the scripture, alone...
Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Everything that is needed for salvation is written in the scripture and it is verified by the very scripture you need to study...
But since the big T traditions differ about, lets say Purgatory and the Authority of the RC pope; two of the initial causes of the Protestant break from the RC's. That shows within the 'Unified RC/OC church' there are infallible doctrines of the RC church that either are not infallible, showing their authority is wrong, or the big T traditions of the OC are wrong. Hence the Schism.
It cannot be unified if one side is big R Right and does not agree with the other on something it rests its authority over ALL the small C catholic church.
This talk of Tradition just seems, and it is not meant as an insult, but it seems to this interested observer, that the OC knows if the RC Traditions are questioned, that soon theirs will be also, since they come from the same roots and as 'inspired' traditions must logically be the same lest they are shown to not be. The reason they must reconcile, and cannot reconcile is because of these Traditions.
And the Reformed say that since they ain't the same they must not be, just as a Prophet must be right 100% of the time or he isn't inspired by God.
The only thing we have that we all agree is inspired are the 8000 translations of the apostles written word in the Koine, Hebrew and Aramaic.
(sorry if this is confused. Early morning without the bean-juice.)
" I suppose then we ought to be thankful that after about 1500 years asleep at the switch while the Fathers wrote under the inspiration of the Evil One, the Holy Spirit finally woke up and inspired the Protestant Reformers to just can what The Church had taught from the beginning, before they got angry over the sale of indulgences?"
Might be a good idea.
"Might be a good idea."
LOL!!! God Bless and have a good Sunday! :)
"God Bless and have a good Sunday! :)"
Nice not to be in a flame war. ;-)
"This talk of Tradition just seems, and it is not meant as an insult, but it seems to this interested observer, that the OC knows if the RC Traditions are questioned, that soon theirs will be also, since they come from the same roots and as 'inspired' traditions must logically be the same lest they are shown to not be. The reason they must reconcile, and cannot reconcile is because of these Traditions."
I think you misunderstand what we Latins and Orthodox are talking about when we speak of Holy Tradition. You referred to Papal Infallibility and purgatory as Traditions. They are not. As was pointed out, there is only one Holy Tradition; there are many traditions. Both of your citations are to dogmas of the Latin Church. These dogmas are, the Latins would say, in accord with Holy Tradition. We Orthodox say otherwise. How Holy Tradition plays itself out in dogma can be and sometimes is quite different between the Latin Church and Orthodoxy. Claims to base a dogma or a belief on Holy Tradition is no assurance that the "dogma" or belief or practice is not in fact heretical. There are many, many examples of this in the early One Church, especially in the East. As a general proposition, it was Rome which was the bastion and beacon of Orthodoxy for the first 800 years of The Church. Since then, on account of the influence of +Augustine and the gradual and increasing secular role the Pope played along with the influence of temporal rulers like Charlemange, Orthodoxy believes that Rome fell into error. of course, Rome believes otherwise. At any rate, individual hierarchs, groups of hierarchs, entire particular churches within The Church can and have misinterpret(ed) Holy Tradition and scripture or the decisions of Ecumenical Councils and fall into heresy. Only The Church can infallibly glean the Truth from scriptures and then through the use of Holy Tradition.
So what you are saying, if I may paraphrase, is the interpretation of the Holy Traditions are different, not the Traditions themselves.
You must admit that when teaching has fallen away from Gods truth, he always seems to put the train back on the rails through a remnant.
We would claim that Martin Luther was inspired by the Spirit, since the mainline Faith had followed the False Teachers that Paul fought so hard to keep out. And what was it that caused him to doubt the Roman faith? The inspired Word of God brought us back to the original beliefs of the Faith.
Asleep at the switch? No, there were throughout history many people that believed much as Luther did, and they were treated much like the Prophets of old:
Matthew 23:37 " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
That's very close to what we are saying, yes.
"You must admit that when teaching has fallen away from Gods truth, he always seems to put the train back on the rails through a remnant."
I couldn't agree more. I think how the Canon was formed is a case in point.
Oops...don't tell that to Timothy. :O)
Ping to above.
Neither 1 John 5 or John 20 say that.
1 John 5 (and many other similar passages) state that the faith is Christ is necessary for salvation. John 20:31 adds to that that the Gospel of John is written to aid in that beleif. Neither passage says that the scripture is sufficient alone. In fact both passages say that it is faith and not the written word that is necessary, but even as regards faith the passages do not say that it is sufficient, and in fact we know from other scripture that it is not.
The article speaks of the Holy Tradition with the capital T. Every community of faith, even among the Catholics, have differences in tradition in the everyday sense of the word. For example, different particular churches even inside Catholicism say different prayers at different times, the priests dress differently, the faithful fast differently, etc. The entire body of tradition of course varies even more greatly with the Orthodox; and when the unity of the two great Churches, Catohlic and Orthodox is finally restored, these traditons will remain different.
As to the Holy Tradition, it is by and large the legacy of the Church of the Seven Councils that exited as a single communion till 1054. This we have in common with the Orthodox.
The Catholic Church had some innovations as per the living magisterium, for example, it elaborated on the concept of purgatory, the papacy, and mariology. In these areas you find significant differences with the Orthodox, but these are not properly Holy Tradition for the Catholic, but rather magisterial teaching.
Do you have a scriptural argument with the Elder?
-The Catholic Church had some innovations as per the living magisterium, for example, it elaborated on the concept of purgatory, the papacy, and mariology. In these areas you find significant differences with the Orthodox, but these are not properly Holy Tradition for the Catholic, but rather magisterial teaching.-
Magisterial teachings are considered infallible teachings?
If so, then the OC is heretical?
Neither the Purgatory nor the authority of the Pope are something the Church believed "everywhere and always." Purgatory was unknown to most of the Undivided Church of the 1st millennium. Papal authority was also perceived differently, and still is.
Therefore Purgatory and Papal jurisdictional authority are not part of the Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition must be in harmony with the Scriptures because the Christian Bible you read is the product of that Tradition, in other words, Faith delivered to the Apostles. To the best of my knowledge, papal jurisdictional authority is not defined in the Bible, and neither is the Purgatory.
You also can't speak of Protestants in terms of the Holy Tradition, because, as far as the uninterrupted Church of God is concerned, the Protestants, even though they are faithful and loving Christians, are unfortunately not part of the Church (and this is not meant as an insult, so please do not take it that way).
With all due respects, I think it is a tad pompous for some to be telling others, "We're much smarter than you because we're 'learned men'." I thought it was the Holy Spirit's job to lead us to "all truths".