/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>634545

Basically, writings of the Church Fathers so that we can see how they interpreted the Scriptures and where they are in agreement then that is clearly sacred tradition

Ecumenical Councils also. When held licitly and validly then their canons and so forth can be regarded as infallible and part of sacred tradition.

(As a Catholic) Ex Cathedra statements by the Holy Father. This means that a dogma is promulgated by the authority of the See of Peter (from the chair, from Peter's Chair). For an explanation of this see the Vatican I documents.

There's probably more but thats a simplistic explanation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patristics

>>634545

>Can a Catholic or Orthodox Christian give the examples of Sacred Tradition?

Orthobro here.

One example is Jude 1:9. It's an episode from the Old Testament which isn't actually in the Old Testament but the writer of the epistle takes it to be true. It was a story which was maintained by "Tradition" and then confirmed by Scripture. Although Scripture obviously doesn't include all of the Tradition, it does make reference to, and sometimes directly quotes, apocryphal books, or refers to history or knowledge which can give context to what one reads.

Sometimes Tradition isn't directly in the Scripture but is valid religious practice or teaching. Burning incense for example; we know that it was done in the Old Testament and the Psalms make reference to it. But should we continue with this practice in the New Testament? Did the Apostles and the early church burn incense or practice liturgical worship? For these questions we turn to Patristics. If the early church fathers (the disciples of the Apostles and their successors) or early church writings confirm it and it doesn't contradict Scripture, then it's valid and likely the "traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Other examples:

The Apostolic Succession of the priesthood.

Any legitimate liturgical practice.

Any writings or oral traditions which give context to Scripture (The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, and other such writings)

The histories of the Church.

Any ruling or teaching from a Synod or Ecumenical Council.

Any teaching on which there is a consensus among the Fathers.

and many others I'm probably missing.

God bless!

>>634547

Is there an ex-cathedra collection of ex-cathedra statements?

Tradition is often paired with scripture as if revelation is contained partly in scripture and partly in tradition. I think that's a confusing way to put it. Scripture is a record of divine revelation. Even in the Catholic tradition, there have been many who say that all Catholic doctrine more or less is contained in scripture.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/is-scripture-sufficient/

However, the approach that Protestants and Catholics take to scripture is very different. Protestants often treat scripture like a blueprint, as if the Apostles wrote the Bible so later generations could puzzle out what to believe and how to run the Church from the Bible alone. Catholics instead interpret scripture not just based on their personal interpretationd, but also informed by the tradition of the church. Most important would be the dogmatic teachings of the church, which cannot be contradicted. Other aspects of tradition would be the rites and ceremonies of the church, the writings of the doctors of the church and even popular piety. The Church is infallible in her dogmatic teaching, but individuals are not.

>>634574

>I think that's a confusing way to put it

It's word for word how Trent put it

>>634571

You probably want to look at a dogmatic manual like this.

https://archive.org/details/OttFundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

Also, I've never looked at Denzinger myself, but it's probably what you want.

https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma

>>634576

Quote where Trent used the word "partly."

>>634580

https://ir.stthomas.edu/sod_mat/4/

>Interestingly, the original draft of the decree, presented on March 22, 1546, was more explicit on this matter by stating, “This truth [of the Gospel] is contained partly [partim] in written books, partly [partim] in unwritten traditions. " For reasons unknown, however, the Council Fathers changed the partim-partim formulation to a simple et in the final decree.

>>634570

>Burning incense for example; we know that it was done in the Old Testament and the Psalms make reference to it.

Malachi explicitly says that the Gentiles will burn incense to the Lord.

>>634585

Ah yes, Malachi 1:11. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

>>634584

Right. So,

1. The Council of Trent did NOT say that revelation was contained partly in scripture and partly tradition. That was the formulation I said was confusing earlier. It equates scripture and tradition when they really function differently.

2. The council likely rejected that formulation because the council fathers probably also thought the formulation was misleading.

Here was some sacred tradition that's talked about in the Bible that (((they))) had.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

>>634592

Wow I;m a prot missile now

>>634592

Malachi 1

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

How come Anderson doesn't burn incense? Do Baptists (independent, fundamental, KJV preaching) follow after their own traditions?

>>634545

a good exampled of Holy Tradition is a little book called the Bible. It was put together by the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit, for the Church.

>>634596

>How come Anderson doesn't burn incense?

He prays does he not? Read revelation 5:8

>And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Here it is implied that the vials are the prayers of the saints and in revelation 8:3-4

>And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.

>And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

It is implied said vials/prayer are a type of incense.

>Do Baptists (independent, fundamental, KJV preaching) follow after their own traditions?

That I don't know. It depends on the person really.

>>634545

>Can a Catholic or Orthodox Christian give the examples of Sacred Tradition? I get the *justification* for Sacred Tradition

I am neither of those types of people. But generally the arguements for sacred tradition go along the lines of obeying authority in romans 13:1 and the power invoked upon the disciples in matthew 28. After that there's not much more to support tradition.

>I just don't know what actually constitutes Sacred Tradition.

matthew 15:9 applies

>But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The commandments of men is what tradition is considered. Usually communicated by mouth and on occasion by extra books that are not scripture such as the book of mormon, the quaran, and other such things against galatians 1:6-9

>I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

>Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

>As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

<But what about the power invoked upon the disciples in matthew 28?

That is where we quote 1 john 5:9

>If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

And also galatians 1:10 applies to those who might use tradition as an arguement to ignore scripture

>For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

But rather ye should do galatians 1:11-12

>But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

>For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

>>634609

Scripture /=/ tradition read 1 thessalonians 2:13

>For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Scripture is literally the words spoken and authorized by God, His speaking or words. If you don't believe that God is literally speaking to you through His word, the Bible, why are you here? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian?

Canon of the Bible, formulas of Sacraments (for exemple "I baptize you in the name of etc."), not rebaptizing converts, Roman Canon, sign of cross, right interpretation of Scripture, apostolic succession in itself (not that it's not mentioned but the thing itself), Trinity (Homoouius) Assumption of Mary (both thing itself and dogma of it, though event was prophesided in Psalms) and other deeds and meaing of them of God (like Creation of Unviserse, Flood, promise of Messiah) etc etc

>>634622

You do realise the scripture doesn't define itself right? That the books that made it into the bible were decided by the Church - by tradition. That even the names of the Gospels are assigned by tradition, by the Church, since they don't appear in them.

The Nativity of the Theotokos.

The Presentation of the Theotokos to the Temple.

The Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos.

These are held as major feasts of the year, even though they're not in the Bible.

Scripture presupposes Sacred Tradition:

https://societyofstalfred.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/traditionalism-and-traditions-in-scripture/

>>634677

…aaand now we wait for the accusations of "idolatry" and such things to roll in.

>>634589

>>634585

Revelations 8:1-5 speaks of the use of incense (and also the prayers of the saints) in worship before God in heaven, which also shows that we should continue to use incense because our worship is supposed to reflect that which is in heaven.

>>634669

Pastor Meme once did a sermon on St. Anathasius' On the Incarnation wherein he accuses the saint of heresy, apparently not aware that it is that very saints canon that he accepts as the ultimate authority. Prots are like ungrateful children who spurn their inheritance.

>>634782

> that very saints canon that he accepts as the ultimate authority.

Not really. Anathasius use Greek Jeremias (bith Baruch and Letter) and excludes Esther.

*Athanasius… It means immortal

>>634545

The Three Ecumenical or Universal Creeds

- The Apostles' Creed

- The Nicene Creed

- The Athanasian Creed

Any other examples besides Councils/Creeds and the writings of Church Fathers?