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

The argument makes no sense at all.

Robert said -
[2] Following the close of the Avignon papacy in 1377, Urban VI, an Italian, took the reins over a predominantly French college of Cardinals. The Cardinals called the election into question and elected Clement VII as Pope. Germany, Italy, England, and the rest of Northern and Eastern Europe remained loyal to Urban, while France, Spain, Scotland, and Rome followed Clement VII (1378-1394) and his successor, Benedict XIII (1394–1417) who would reside in Avignon. Although thought many times to have been improved, the divide between the two papacies has never been rejoined, calling into question both the legitimacy of the popes and the Petrine Doctrine itself.

How does the lack of loyalty of anyone ever call into question the rightful position of any person in a lineage? That argument (such as it is) makes no sense and has not basis. If all of the kingdom of any leader turns disloyal that does not make him any less the legitimate leader. This is not a popularity contest.