CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 23rd July 2008, 02:42 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

Most theologians do not understand that Tradition is the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation. Also, not many theologians write at length about Tradition itself. Those who think that some truths are found only in Tradition or only in Scripture, but not both, generally don't understand Tradition to be deeds; they tend to confuse Tradition with the transmission of Tradition.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 24th July 2008, 04:53 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
theologians do not agree on the answer to that question.

my opinion is that all truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in Tradition are also found, explicitly or implicitly, in Scripture, the literal or figurative meaning being explicit, and the spiritual meaning being implicit.

In the case of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin which is part of Sacred Tradition, it is clear there is no explicit Scriptural basis for it, and I would venture no figurative or spriritual basis as well. Or, is there ?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 24th July 2008, 05:32 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
In the case of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin which is part of Sacred Tradition, it is clear there is no explicit Scriptural basis for it, and I would venture no figurative or spriritual basis as well. Or, is there ?

The explicit level of meaning of Scripture is literal or figurative.
The implicit level of meaning of Scripture is the spiritual level.

The passages that refer to the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, apply implicitly to Mary, because she was perfect in following Christ. There are numerous passages that can be understood as implicitly refering to Mary's assumption. For example, this passage from Acts:

{13:35} And also then, in another place, he says: ‘You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption.’

It refers primarily to Christ, but secondarily to Mary, since she is more like her Son than any other human person.

And there is this verse:

[Revelation 12]
{12:1} And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 24th July 2008, 06:25 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Ron, has the Catholic Church always understood Sacred Tradition as “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation” as defined in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum ?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 24th July 2008, 07:27 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
Ron, has the Catholic Church always understood Sacred Tradition as “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation” as defined in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum ?
This understanding has always been implicit in the spiritual life and worship of the Church. The faithful have always lived according to the example of Christ, which is preeminent within Tradition. But this idea has not always been understood explicitly, in these same terms.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 24th July 2008, 09:15 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
This understanding has always been implicit in the spiritual life and worship of the Church. The faithful have always lived according to the example of Christ, which is preeminent within Tradition. But this idea has not always been understood explicitly, in these same terms.

Your certainly right! Hence, your title "New Insights into Sacred Tradition". I think your explanation of the definition of Sacred Tradition is perhaps providential in the sense that it could help restore theological gaps, like Sola Scriptura, with the Protestants. Especially in light of the unification of the Church in the 2020's and the Ecumenical Council to follow.

Generally speaking, Protestants (and Catholics too!) confuse or at least associate Tradition, in part, as oral in nature in the sense that there is revelation handed down from Christ to the apostles orally that was never recorded in Scripture and which has subsequently been preserved by the Magisterium of the Church.

Catholics also confuse Tradition:

John Hardon, in his Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, says:

84. What is Sacred Tradition?
Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God that the prophets and apostles received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and, under his guidance, the Church has handed on to the Christian world. St. Paul told the faithful: 'Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that were taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter' (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

87. How has Sacred Tradition been handed on?
Sacred Tradition, which is divine revelation in oral form, has been handed on by the Church's doctrine, life and worship.

This leads to the belief that you have one source (God) but two vehicles of divine revelation, one written (Scripture) and one oral (Tradition). I certainly was of this opinion!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 24th July 2008, 09:44 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

This confusion occurs because there are two things to consider:

Tradition itself - the infallible deeds of God in salvation history

the transmission of Tradition - by spoken and written word (not infallible), and by deed and example (also not infallible)

But obviously anything oral can be written down, so the main distinction between Tradition and Scripture cannot be that one is spoken and the other written. Also, the individual acts that serve to transmit Tradition are not infallible. But Tradition itself must be infallible, so there must be a distinction between Tradition itself and its means of transmission.

This distinction also occurs with Sacred Scripture. The means of transmitting Scripture (by particular translations and edits of the Bible) can have errors particular to that translation or edition, yet the truths being transmitted are inerrant.

Yes, I think you are right that it is providential. This definition of Tradition is one that might be more acceptable to Protestants. They cannot deny that there were deeds by God in salvation history.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 24th July 2008, 10:11 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Ron, I like you analogy of Tradition and Scripture to music and words, it helps to visualize better the distinction between the two:

"Tradition and Scripture are like a song with both music and words. They are in perfect harmony together and together they express the same thing. The music can be discussed in words, but it can never actually be put into words without ceasing to be music. Just so, Tradition is the truths of God that cannot be put into words without ceasing to be Sacred Infallible Tradition. "
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 26th July 2008, 01:43 AM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Most theologians do not understand that Tradition is the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation. Also, not many theologians write at length about Tradition itself. Those who think that some truths are found only in Tradition or only in Scripture, but not both, generally don't understand Tradition to be deeds; they tend to confuse Tradition with the transmission of Tradition.

It would make sense that the deeds of God in the history of Salvation are to have a foundation in Scripture because one would come to the conclusion that If something is not in Scripture, it is not in Scripture. And if it is not in Scripture, it is not part of the Deposit of Faith.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 3rd August 2008, 08:52 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
This understanding has always been implicit in the spiritual life and worship of the Church. The faithful have always lived according to the example of Christ, which is preeminent within Tradition. But this idea has not always been understood explicitly, in these same terms.

Ron, then should your teachings about Tradition contained in your article be caveated in the sense that, although implicit in the Church's doctrine (which you suggest and I agree with), it has not been explicitated by the Magisterium as of yet and therefore infallible.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.