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?

fbadams's picture

Church

So many folks get so hung up on the meaning of "church". As an Anglican I am a "Catholic" as are all "Protestants". In fact the meaning of the word catholic is "universal". The Catholic Church is more correctly labeled the "Roman Catholic Church" indicating both its origin as well as the "rite" which is its form of worship. Thus, those who subscribe to that mode of worship are of the Roman Catholic denomination. (Most Catholics do not like that term but it fits perfectly because there are MANY denominations in the catholic church.). Church literally means "Body of Christ" with Christ at the head. (Roman) Catholics might claim to be the heart of the body, Pentecostals the feet, Methodists the hands and so on, with each member of the body having differing means of accomplish the earthly mission of the church. The Orthodox too are "catholics".

But Christ's church is both physical as well as mystical and it is nothing if not universal, or catholic. In fact, I am just as offended at those claims of fellow christians not to be "catholic" as I am by Roman Catholics claiming to be the only catholics. So stop squabbling, especially over words that are used incorrectly.




Advertisements