We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Scripture and Tradition? Where does Tradition stand?

Loutzenhiser's picture

We will continue the 2 Tim and 1 Thess here. I will bring the last posts from each thread here.

Let me define the thread subject here. We all agree that Scripture is foundational to the church, but where does tradition stand and what tradition.

Some questions -

Is a tradition considered to be apostolical even though it is announced and defined at a later date?

Must a tradition have some other supporting evidence or is the church's "word" good enough for it to be considered canonical?

Is Dogma tradition or just a church's view?

What support must a tradition have to be canonical? (such as multi-church support?)

Are views and teachings about a tradition also tradition or just a church's opinion?

michael_legna's picture

You are passing over a well known and accepted concept

"We've always thought this, but only now do we need to declare these thoughts."

JStaller said -
That seems like a handy rhetorical maneuver, but not like a sincere assessment of the past.

No it is a sincere assessment of the past, maybe not your understanding of the past or what you have been taught of the past - but it is a long held belief of the Church and its knowledge of the way history has unfolded. It is in fact a common and well known explanation by religious historians for the explanation of the development of the Nicene Creed.

JStaller said -
Papal infallibility was not always believed (2 popes, right? Avignon and Rome, was it?), though Papal authority was nearly invincible.

No there have never been two Popes at the same time. There has been a Pope with another pretending to be Pope and making a claim to such office at the same time, but never two Popes at the same time.

JStaller said -
Oddly enough, the decree was not made until the world around the Church started rejecting Church authority altogether, and instead of handling the changing paradigms with care and thought, the pope built up the walls of the Vatican and declared himself (through councils) to be absolutely right about all matters of Faith

Your reasoning on this is in error, because the decree was not until 1870. So those who had placed themselves in the world around the Church (rather than inside it) had done so hundreds of years prior to the decree, so it was not aimed at responding to them, but to some still within the Church who were beginning to question this point which had been known even in the very early Church.

JStaller said -
and.... well, to say that "We always thought that," seems about as revisionist as, "Well, the founding Father's weren't racist."

Of course which historians one believes plays a major role in the world view one develops. I for one trust those closest to the events and have no reason to revise the events they just witnessed, rather than those who are removed from the events by 2000 years and can only guess at what really happened.

JStaller said -
Evidence to the contrary is painted all over history, even if that evidence mars our pristine view of our nation and sabotages the PC authority of our government.

On this we will have to disagree, because this so called evidence you see has only been brought to light or "created" by modern historians.