Talk:Sacred tradition

Background
This article was written from a stub. It can be further expanded, as this is a fairly large topic. I've given the article an expanded starting point. --Ronconte 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge
It would be nice if we could get rid of the extraneous article Christian Traditions by merging it here. Perhaps adding a section in this article like "Protestant Approaches to Tradition." Thoughts?? Pastordavid 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sacred Tradition is a Catholic technical term. The other article is a survey of Christian tradition from a neutral position. MPS 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vigorously oppose Sacred Tradition is a "term of art," and merger would confuse the use of the term.HarvardOxon 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are Christian traditions; and there is Tradition in the sense used by the liturgical churches, a prior or parallel channel of religious revelation.  Both Christian traditions generally and Sacred Tradition in this technical sense deserve articles, and it would be confusing to merge them. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose

There is Christian tradition and Sacred Tradition and Protestant tradition. None of these three correspond with one another, nor do they mean the same thing. Benkenobi18 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
This is a single statement dispute. Regarding the marked sentences, according to the guidelines of religious articles, there must be some relevance to this statement (e.g. why "Madrid refused to comply, and said that no Catholic would ever do so."). This is clearly an ambiguous statement, and lends nothing to the article regarding the Catholic Position on Sacred Tradition, other than, as is apparent to me, bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawst (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved that stuff to the foot-note. Someone added to my contribution the statement that Madrid pointed to the Biblical canon as an example of "Tradition." Madrid's response to White was a mere rhetorical dodge of White's question - White asked for doctrinal truths that aren't found in the Bible which have been preserved in a fixed, reliable form over the centuries. Madrid's "tradition" of the canon was a mere semantic word-shift to avoid the implication of White's challenge - no one disputes that the Bible exists in the broader context of human knowledge (e.g., the Greek language, historical knowledge of the Roman empire, etc.). The Catholic claim is that doctrines have been passed down which aren't found in the Bible, not that they have historical records of who wrote the various books. If we start putting arguments and counter-arguments in Wikipedia articles, that detracts from the encyclopedia quality of the article. If the reader wants to sort through the various arguments in their fine detail, they can follow the links.
 * --ManicBrit (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

i don't understand
I honestly don’t understand what the “sacred tradition” is reading this article. Please correct me if I’m wrong, here’s what I get: the revelation is not only the bible, but also the lives and teachings of people who… lived according to the bible? Am I getting this right? Does it make any sense? Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 14:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The best answer to you question is found in a the book Tradition and the Chruch by Monsignor George Aguis (1928). "The proper source of Revelation is the word of God, which is both written and unwritten. The written is contained in Scripture; the unwritten in Tradition. When we speak of the unwritten word of God, we do not mean that it was never written, but that it was never written by the man to whom God revealed it. It was committed to writing afterwards by his disciples, or by others who heard it from his lips." Ranp (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic influence in Eastern Orthodox section
Apparently Roman Catholics have invaded the Eastern Orthodox section. Give them their own section, don't take up space that doesn't belong to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.141.92 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you, that was very quick, I didn't think the editors worked that fast! Again, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.141.92 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sacred Tradition
Carl Bunderson, I highly disagree with your deletion of the Literature section that I just added to the article. I don't want to get into a Insert/Delete thing with you on this article. Therefore, can you please explain to me why you deleted the Literature section from the Sacred Tradition article? The one book that was listed in the Literature section (listed below) is the only significant work I know of on Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church. Monsignor George Aguis, the author of the book, held three doctoral degrees! There is no questioning of Monsignor Aguis qualifications to write on the subject. No book explains in plain terms what Sacred Tradition is like this book. In fact, the article needs to be re-written to reflect the contents of the book.Ranp (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agius, George. Tradition and the Church. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 2005. ISBN-10: 0895558211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit didn't really improve the article; we don't need lists of books, however good, at the end of articles. It appeared as though it was merely spam-like promotion of a book. I know Tan Publishers, and I'm sure it would be a good source for this article. If your wish is indeed to add to this article and use Msgr Aguis' book as a reference, I am most ready to laud you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carl. You reason make perfect sense.  As time allows I will try to improve the article by referencing the book.  Again, thanks.Ranp (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding, and I apologize for not giving you the courtesy of an explanation initially. God bless, carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Tradition Here Is a Nebulous Concept
Perhaps it is accurate to say that establishing the concept of "Sacred Tradition" is like nailing jello to a wall. I am thinking that it might be stated up front that Sacred Tradition is not an exact concept, as if you could have a book with pages in it and then study it like you can the Bible. Or am I wrong? Is there any written compilation anywhere of just what the RCC regards as "Sacred Tradition," on a par with the Bible, infallible, propositional? In fact I am wondering if anyone has described the concept as mumbo jumbo, semantic nonsense.(EnochBethany (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC))


 * It's often said that Sacred Tradition preceded the Bible in terms of what was taught about the life and teachings of Jesus, as the Bible in its current form was not finalized and compiled until about 5th century AD. To get an idea of what Sacred Tradition is in a written form, I would suggest getting a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings and teachings (known as "Constitutions") that came from the Catholic Church's 21 ecumenical councils throughout the last two millenia. Hope that helps! President Rhapsody (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Validity of Catholic Church Authority" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Validity of Catholic Church Authority. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)