Scripture and
Tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of
faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology
and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic
tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one
understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is
found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply
non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming
to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the
Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in
Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is
Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching
authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings
of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture
correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine
revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship
between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close
connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture.
For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain
way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture
is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration
of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition
hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles
by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these
successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully,
explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from
sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture
are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants,
who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura
(Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing
a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing
you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture
is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the
man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of
sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from
John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30,
the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in
question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory
of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only
that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the
Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less
that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is
even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians
had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral,
rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible
was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or
because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned
from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that
only inspired writing need be followed is something
else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical
and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained
it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage
furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition,
is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable
for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle
[Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle
here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not
written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written
even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were
then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the
scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage
proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of
the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy
3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages,
one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation
that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses
immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have
learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and
how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which
are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2
Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned
for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul
himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The
first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching
which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy
3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura.
But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching
the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete
rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in
the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs
us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians,
just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus
told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you
rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was
given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative.
He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations"
(Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral
instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes
by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the
living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written
word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing.
The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of
Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides
for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet.
1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally.
This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible
(supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its
own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells
Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to
faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here
we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has
been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed
Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received
from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach
others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long
before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should
conduct his ministry.
What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind
what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to
legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs
or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles
of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical
rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the
apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely
(perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode
of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the
Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition
as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given
primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form
the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by
the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26,
16:13).
Handing on the faith
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered
to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for
our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I
or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle
praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember
me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them
to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the
apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament.
From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in
the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching
Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself
gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is
more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and
must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are
oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul
does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as
in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians
"through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition.
They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of
God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to
it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according
to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe,
and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn
erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and
entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of
what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from
human traditions or customs.
"Commandments of men"
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists
and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions
of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a
true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does
me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is
in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look
closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned
only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of
the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they
could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they
dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide
by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes
and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever
they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice"
(Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do,
unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians
2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to
be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as
in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should
be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous
traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths.
The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the
Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether
oral or written.
The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic
tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are
merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are
apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or
teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching
authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture
are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it
can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions
have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that
the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and
the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation
of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
Interested in reading more about the Bible?
Check out these wonderful titles from the Bible and Theology section of our online Catalogue
(links open in a new window):
Bible
The Ignatius Bible, Hardcover format
The Ignatius Bible, Paperback
Vatican Publications
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket Edition
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
Bible Interpretation
Inside The Bible, Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Making Senses Out Of Scripture, Mark Shea
Where Is That In The Bible?, Patrick Madrid
Where We Got the Bible, Bishop Henry G. Graham
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
[TOP]
