What Sacred Tradition IS (Part 2)

What Tradition Is:

The statements in the previous posts about no new revelation (CCC 66, 73) are based on Heb 1: 1-2 and echo the first lines of John “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….. and the Word became flesh.”

The last lines in the Gospel of John:

²⁴This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
²⁵Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The Bible & Catechism teach that Jesus was the full revelation of all Truth from God. There is nothing new that God needs to tell us that He didn’t tell us with Jesus. This is called the Deposit of Faith. There are two ways that this is passed down to us. One is the Bible. Tradition is everything else.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (NASB 2 Thess 2:15)

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinth 11:2) (this is NASB version, traditions is translated as teachings in NIV. NASB is also a Protestant version and is known to be a more literal translation)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Thess 3:6) (this is NASB version, traditions is translated as teachings in NIV. NASB is also a Protestant version and is known to be a more literal translation)

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.
(CCC 77 & 78)

One thing I think about is that Jesus spent 3 years teaching the Apostles. That is much more teaching than is contained in the Scripture of the NT. If the Holy Spirit could preserve the teaching and cause it to be infallibly written in Scripture 10 to 40 years later, then the Holy Spirit can also preserve Sacred Tradition infallibly in the Church down to this day.

I also tend to think of Tradition as what other Christians might call orthodoxy. What has been the accepted interpretation of scripture throughout the history of the Church? If all Christians have been in agreement on a certain issue (such as Jesus both man & God, the Trinity, etc.) through time, then one is not free to come up with their own pet doctrine.

A great example of Sacred Tradition would be that Jesus was not married and didn’t have any children. This isn’t specifically taught in Scripture. But, imagine if the DaVinci Code book spawned heretical movements about that. If it got to the point where a large segment of the faithful were led astray, the Magisterium could establish a “new” dogma that Jesus was never married. This dogma would have always been there in Sacred Tradition and not a new revelation from God.

Magisterium

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.
(CCC 85 – 86)

How can the CC make this claim?

²⁵"All this I have spoken while still with you. ²⁶But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14: 25 – 26)

Some apply this to all believers, and by extension, you could make that argument. But here Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles and says they’ll be reminded of everything Jesus said to them. Jesus hasn’t spoken directly to most individual believers since that time (with the exception of possible encounters with Jesus like Paul had). Most of us have heard the Holy Spirit speak to our hearts, but we are not in the position to be reminded of what Jesus spoke to us, like the apostles were. I guess you could say this applies to when the Holy Spirit brings Scriptures back to our minds at the perfect time, but that doesn’t seem to fit the context.

Bishops are successors of the Apostles. The CC contends that every bishop today has a direct line of succession back to one of the 12 Apostles, with the teaching authority and the promise of John 14:26 also handed down.

¹²"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. ¹³But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ¹⁴He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. (John 16:12 – 14)

¹⁵"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
¹⁶Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
¹⁷Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:15 – 19)

Around the time I stopped practicing Catholicism, I heard the explanation that in the Greek petros is used for Peter and petra is used for rock. Petros means small stone & petra means rock. The conclusion drawn from that was that Jesus was drawing a distinction between Peter (small stone) and petra (rock – which could be Jesus or could be a profession of faith) and not actually saying Peter was the Rock the Church was built on.

However, in coming back to the CC, I read this opinion: When Jesus said this He was speaking Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, there is only one word used for rock, which was kepha. This is why Peter is sometimes referred to as Kepha or Cephas in other parts of NT. So Jesus said something more like: I tell you that you are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church. When Matthew translated and recorded it in Greek, he chose not to use petra for Peter, because petra was a feminine gender noun. That would be like giving Peter a female name. Instead, he chose the masculine petros for the translation. I am not a Greek or Aramaic scholar, so this opinion could be wrong, but to me it does seem consistent with the context of the rest of the passage where Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter.

Eph. 2:20 states that God’s household is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. So although Jesus is the chief cornerstone, the apostles were the foundation and the Church was indeed built upon them (and Christ). So it would not be incongruent to say that Peter was the rock the Church was built upon. In fact, it could be both. Instead of saying the rock was either Jesus or it was Peter or it was Peter’s profession of faith, it could be that it is all of those things in different senses

There is much more that could be said about apostolic succession & primacy of Peter (John 21:15-17 as just one example), but I’ll put that aside for now.

Ask most Christians what the Bible teaches is the pillar and foundation of truth is and what will they instinctively say? What would you say?

I would have guessed Scripture. But the Bible says it’s the Church.

¹⁵if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

Tradition’s relation to Scripture:

Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium form a 3-legged stool.

It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
(CCC 95)

Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.
(CCC 82)