God’s Tradition and Men’s Traditions: A Reply to Protestant Critics

In the context of a forum where my first article, dedicated to Hugo Klapproth’s[i] argument against the “sola scriptura” doctrine, was discussed, I encountered––as expected––one of the most frequently cited biblical quotes that Protestant believers use to reject the Tradition upheld by Catholics. While there are several such passages in the New Testament, the first of them, and likely the most frequently quoted, appears in the 15th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. Due to its significance, I will quote it in full:

“Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men” (Matthew 15:1-9).

“Jesus addresses the issues of traditions. Sola Scripture says you test traditions against God’s word, you don’t test God’s word with tradition. Now which is the higher authority? Church tradition or God’s word?”[ii]

The hidden premise is based on the fact that, as seen in the quoted passage, our Lord Jesus Christ rejects the hypocritical traditions of the scribes and Pharisees in favor of the divine commandments found in the sacred texts of the Bible, authored by God Himself. Through a hasty generalization, based on this passage from Matthew as well as other similar passages (Mark 7:3 and 7:8-9; Colossians 2:8, etc.), it is concluded that anything called ‘tradition’ is always synonymous with what Christ the Savior condemns: the “tradition of men” (Mark 7:8; Colossians 2:8) or the “tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:3 and 7:5). In other words, from these passages, it is inferred that God has established an irreducible opposition between ‘tradition’ and ‘the commandments of God’ as found in Holy Scripture. This is incorrect. For if we carefully examine the texts of the New Testament, we will find an equally important passage where, on the contrary, faithfulness to ‘tradition’ is explicitly recommended. This passage, which I will present shortly, shows us that there are indeed two types of tradition that are irreducible: the Tradition of God and the hypocritical traditions of those who seek to justify their ignorance, lack of piety, and, above all, their own sins with religious arguments.

While researching Holy Scripture, I immediately identified the Greek term used for the word ‘tradition:’ παράδοσις. Although it indeed appears most often in contexts with pejorative connotations, there is one passage where it has positive connotations. This passage is found in the final chapter of the Second Epistle of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians:

Thus, in an inspired text of Holy Scripture, ‘tradition’ is not only not condemned but, on the contrary, recommended to be respected and followed by the members of the first Christian community in Thessalonica. Clearly, the ‘tradition’ to which the apostle refers has nothing to do with the ‘traditions of men’ or ‘traditions of the elders’ mentioned in the passages cited earlier. Specifically, we are dealing with two antagonistic ‘traditions:’ the hypocritical one, created by men to justify their actions that oppose the Law of God, and the tradition of God, which, through His apostles, teaches us how to live as true Christians. Therefore, a first conclusion immediately presents itself: from the perspective of the texts of Holy Scripture, it is unacceptable to completely reject everything that bears the name ‘tradition.’ What is actually required of us is an act of discernment by which we distinguish false traditions, pseudo-traditions, from the true tradition of God. But what is the foundation of such an act of discernment? The text of Saint Paul also offers us the answer to this question: it involves pointing out those individuals with divine authority who can teach us the authentic content of God’s Tradition. These individuals are the first hierarchs (i.e., bishops) of the Church, the apostles.

In the question raised by Hugo Klapproth, which I quoted in my article, the author clearly suggested an answer of the same nature as that of Saint Paul:

“Should you make use of the Bible alone as the source and norm of your Faith, then you must also be certain that the Bible that you have is the genuine Bible. Who vouches for that?”

It is impossible to accept the Biblical canon without someone with divine authority vouching for it. Otherwise, it would result in total chaos, where each new Christian convert would have to determine for himself which are the canonical, inspired books of the sacred texts. (This is similar to accepting our biological parents: we trust that those who present themselves as our parents are who they claim to be in relation to us. Otherwise, how would we know who our parents are? No newborn has memories from the moment of birth that would allow them to know who his mother is.) Holy Scripture itself shows us that it is impossible for someone to understand the revealed texts entirely on his own, without being guided by someone truly guided by the Holy Spirit. This is made abundantly clear in a well-known passage from the Acts of the Apostles. Here, in chapter 8, it is narrated how a high-ranking official of Queen Candace of Ethiopia was reading the book of the prophet Isaiah from the Old Testament while traveling back from Jerusalem. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle Philip approached the chariot in which he was reading. Their dialogue is extraordinarily relevant:

“And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus” (Acts, 8:30-35).

Here it is! In Holy Scripture itself, we have a crystal-clear instance where someone, reading a biblical text alone, acknowledges that it is not self-explanatory. Even more: the eunuch of Queen Candace states that he needs someone––a person––to interpret the text from Isaiah for him. In that case, through the grace of God, that someone was Saint Philip the Apostle. Just like in the text from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians by Saint Paul the Apostle, the ‘vehicle’ of authentic Tradition was an apostle.

Clearly, by this, I do not imply in any way that the apostles are the source of divine teaching. Not at all. The source is, categorically, God Himself. However, some of His representatives, like the scribes and Pharisees criticized by Christ the Savior for their invented ‘traditions,’ have falsified the true Tradition of God, instead of remaining true heralds of it. I will not address here the difficult discussion about who and how one can verify the correctness of Tradition when those who are God’s representatives (be they priests, bishops, cardinals, or Popes) go astray––unfortunately, this is possible––and do what those rebuked by the Lord Jesus Christ did. However, I emphasize that there is an authentic, divine Tradition, categorically opposed to false traditions. Therefore, it is wrong to reject the very notion of Tradition based on quotes like the one from Matthew (15:1-9).

The true divine Tradition contains everything God teaches us, both through the teachings written in the sacred texts and through His unwritten teachings. Actually, the sacred Tradition itself can be written or unwritten. Anyway, to make things as clear as possible, I will propose two examples. The first refers to how one of the commandments of the Decalogue has been traditionally understood: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The sixth commandment seems to speak only about extreme sexual sins––fornication, adultery. In fact, the authentic Tradition has always considered that this commandment encompasses all those numerous categories of sins that destroy the purity of human sexuality, created by God exclusively for the transmission of life and the manifestation of marital love within the absolute monogamy of marriage. If we were to reject the teachings of Tradition, we might say that certain sins like masturbation or contraception have nothing to do with violating this commandment. I hope it is evident to all of us that such a rejection would be profoundly erroneous.

Another example, much less known, refers to the principles of sacred architecture manifested in the construction of traditional Christian churches. Without exception, any connoisseur––Christian or non-Christian––of these principles can show that their origin is a revelation received by King David (I Chronicles 28:19). God, therefore, is the one who directly showed the author of the Psalms how to build both the temple and its contents. Based on this revelation encoded in the construction of the temple, as well as on the proportions revealed in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation, medieval Christian architects created the magnificent Gothic churches. If you want to convince yourself, you can watch one of the most fascinating documentaries presented by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): “Building the Great Cathedrals. How did medieval engineers construct magnificent skyscrapers of glass and stone?”[iii] If you haven’t seen it, I assure you that you will be amazed by everything you will learn from this exceptional film. Thus, the construction rules for authentic churches belong to an authentic sacred tradition. Although they are not of the same importance as those regarding the interpretation of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue or those concerning the Sacraments of the Church and how they should be celebrated, they still belong to Holy Tradition.

If we want to take seriously both the criticisms of our Lord Jesus Christ in chapter 15 of the Gospel of Matthew, and at the same time follow the advice of Saint Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians 3:6, we must not reject everything that bears the name ‘tradition.’ On the contrary, we should learn from the holy masters of sacred hermeneutics (Hugo Klapproth included) how to discern between the true Tradition of God and the hypocritical traditions of men. I am convinced that this is a challenge to which all of us, Catholics or Protestants, are today more than ever invited by God himself.

“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition (τὴν παράδοσιν) which they have received of us” (II Thessalonians 3:6). Thus, in an inspired text of Holy Scripture, ‘tradition’ is not only not condemned but, on the contrary, recommended to be respected and followed by the members of the first Christian community in Thessalonica. Clearly, the ‘tradition’ to which the apostle refers has nothing to do with the ‘traditions of men’ or ‘traditions of the elders’ mentioned in the passages cited earlier.

Which, consistent with the track record of such attacks, this polemic is also utterly invalid. For men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of which popes and councils claim to do.

"God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document...when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Thus, unless you want to impose new RC teaching, then it remains that the Scriptures alone are the sure, substantive wholly God-inspired assuredly infallible word of God.

And thus Scripture provided the *doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.

Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture. For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15

And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture.(Acts 17:11)

“Should you make use of the Bible alone as the source and norm of your Faith, then you must also be certain that the Bible that you have is the genuine Bible. Who vouches for that?” It is impossible to accept the Biblical canon without someone with divine authority vouching for it.

Likewise this argument fails - as it did the last time you attempted it - with its premise being that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, or at least men are to concur with all the judgments of those who were the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ.

For as you were shown, rather than an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

Holy Scripture itself shows us that it is impossible for someone to understand the revealed texts entirely on his own, without being guided by someone truly guided by the Holy Spirit.

SS is not contrary to the teaching office in the body of Christ, but at the least a properly disposed (by obeying the light one has) soul can be saved by reading a sermon such as in Acts 10:34-43, and long before there was Scripture or a church God always provided enough light for one to know God and find essential salvific Truth and be saved. Ps. 19:1-14).

Moreover, the damnable premise behind this RC argument here is that she is the sure salvific shepherd, yet distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

And the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus, following the premise of Catholicism that souls should submit to all the judgments of the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ, then 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses as to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, thus nuking the church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.