THE LONELY PILGRIM AND SACRED TRADITION

 

I have recently run across an article by a Catholic person whose blog is identified as the “Lonely Pilgrim.”  On his blog, he has some thoughtful articles and he seems to be very intelligent and down-to-earth.  The article I want to address today is titled, “What Sacred Tradition Is and Is Not: 7 Answers to Common Misconceptions” and you can find it here:

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/09/07/what-sacred-scripture-is-and-is-not-answers-to-some-common-misunderstandings/

Oral Versus Written

I would love to respond to every item in his article, but that would make my response way too long.  So, I’ll just try to hit some of the main points.

He starts off saying that “Sacred Tradition – including Sacred Scripture – started out as oral tradition.”

Ok, no problem.  It is true that the contents of the Bible were first received orally (spoken) before they were ever written down.  Most things do start off that way.  That’s not an issue and it doesn’t prove anything against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by the way.

Next, the Lonely Pilgrim points out the fact that not everything that Jesus and the apostles said or did was written down (i.e., in Scripture).  He says:

“But what do you suppose happened to all the stories of the other things Jesus said and taught and did, all the other things that Paul and the Apostles taught? …Everything that came from the mouth of Jesus was the Word of God. Did it cease to be the Word of God, cease to be Divine Revelation, because it was among those ‘many other signs Jesus did’?”

Ok, good questions, and he is, of course, referring to John 20:30-31 that says that there was much, much more information about Jesus than what is contained in John’s gospel.  Now, no one is saying that what Jesus said (apart from the Bible) stopped being Divine Revelation – but the problem is that no one knows with certainty exactly what all was said in the first place!  Catholics are willing to take the word of certain men (who, by the Lonely Pilgrim’s own admission, were not speaking infallibly) and put some of what they said on the same level as Scripture.     

Now, of course, many from the early church claimed to know what Jesus said.  What they’re telling us He said may, or may not, be accurate.  Now, no doubt, they got at least some of the things right that Jesus and the apostles said.  After all, some of them lived in the same time period.  Nevertheless, “closer in time” does not necessarily mean that everything they claimed that Jesus taught was true (John 21:20-23).

The Lonely Pilgrim then states that these sayings of Jesus were remembered and passed down to the following generations.  So, he is implying that all these things that were spoken and done by Jesus (while never written) were indeed known and kept by the early church.  But since they were not written, they couldn’t be considered Scripture, so they had to fall under another “infallible” category, one created by the Catholic Church – Sacred Tradition.  It seems that the Catholic Church saw an opportunity here, and they latched on to it.  But it is always dangerous to assign infallibility to something so vague, to such a body of information that they can’t even tell us what it is!

Transparency?

The Lonely Pilgrim says:

“Protestant critics complain that ‘tradition’ is something nebulous and undefined that Catholics can say is whatever they want it to be.”

And he then boasts:

“I have never seen an organization [the Catholic Church] go to greater lengths to be open and transparent as to the content and basis of its doctrines.”

He then goes on to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church documents and Church fathers, and how they can all be easily found online.  He seems to boast of the “availability” of the Catholic Church’s sources, but this all begs the question…

A Clear Definition?

Ok, so the big question is this: What exactly were all those unwritten things Jesus said and did?  Can any Catholic tell us every word?  Can anyone know for sure, or tell us infallibly?  No, the best they can do with such information (that’s not in the Bible) is read what the fathers said that Jesus said.  But that certainly doesn’t imply any kind of infallibility. 

As far as the content of Sacred Tradition, some of the Catholic Church’s “definitions” include “the living and growing truth,” or “the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.”  The Second Vatican Council says that Tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, chapter. 2, paragraph 8).

THIS is supposed to be meaningful?  Is this as understandable and exact as they can make it?  If so, is it any wonder why Protestants complain about Sacred Tradition being nebulous or unclear?  These “definitions” are not telling us anything.  Sorry, but that’s not being “open” and “transparent” about the contents of your Sacred Tradition. 

Remember, we’re talking about teaching that is supposedly inspired and infallible here.  When he mentions the Catechism (above) as Tradition, is the Lonely Pilgrim saying that every part of the Catechism is inspired?  I certainly hope not.  If not, then which parts?  I don’t think anyone can tell us, and I know of no infallible list of those parts.    

But maybe we can find the perfect definition of Tradition in Pope Pius IX, who was speaking with Cardinal Guidi of Bologna about popes having infallibility.  The Cardinal pointed out that the idea of “papal infallibility” did not agree with Church Tradition.  So the pope arrogantly roared, “I AM TRADITION!”  Yep, I think this pretty much sums it up.  In essence, he was saying, “Who are you to tell me what Tradition says?  Whatever I, the Vicar of Christ, want Tradition to be is Tradition!”  This speaks volumes.

Tradition Inspired?

Not only does the Catholic Church seem to say that they have all the words of Jesus and the apostles in Sacred Tradition (which is not true), but also that this “deposit of faith” is equal to Scripture.  After all, Sacred Tradition is also considered by Catholics as “the Word of God.”  The official Catholic document, Dei Verbum, chapter 2, paragraph 9, says:

“Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” (Emphasis mine)

So that, to me, means that Dei Verbum is saying the two would have to be equal.  But interestingly, the Lonely Pilgrim says that Scripture and Tradition don’t have “equal authority,” because they have “different characters.”  So, it seems he is free to disagree with a statement that the Catholic Church considers infallible. 

It is also interesting that only the Catholic Church can authentically interpret this Sacred Tradition (CCC #100)!  Hmmm.  Seems to be self-serving, doesn’t it?

The Lonely Pilgrim claims:

“The Church Fathers are not Sacred Tradition, but they do contain Sacred Tradition. “

Well, he needs to demonstrate exactly WHICH PARTS of the fathers’ teachings are infallible.  Can he give us all of them, so we can know?  Sorry, but just throwing a bunch quotes into a pile, calling it the “deposit of faith,” and saying that “Sacred Tradition” is somewhere in there just doesn’t cut it. 

Concerning the fathers, the Lonely Pilgrim admits:

“And sometimes they are plain wrong. Sometimes, many times, the Church Fathers even disagree with each other! But it is the things they agree upon, the core of apostolic teachings, that we receive as Sacred Tradition.”

Agreeing upon a core of “apostolic” teachings is fine if they are indeed apostolic.  And if they are, they will be consistent with Scripture.  The Bible tells us to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), including Tradition.  When determining doctrine, Scripture is not tested by Tradition, but Tradition is tested by Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), thus showing they are not equal.

Furthermore, when you read the fathers, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly, since they are a long way off from our culture (as Lonely Pilgrim stated elsewhere in his article about Scripture interpretation)?  If it is hard to interpret Scripture (as Catholics often claim), why should it be any easier to interpret the fathers, since they use language quite different from our own?

Taking Liberties with Scripture

As I said above, the key passage from which all this stems is John 20:30-31:

“Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.  But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”

Now folks, let’s take a deep breath and put aside any preconceived Catholic or Protestant ideas, and just take this passage at face value. 

What is the intention of the apostle John here?  He is revealing the purpose of his book/gospel in this passage so that the reader might believe in Christ and have eternal life.  That’s it. 

He’s not saying that there are many other signs that Jesus did and the church fathers will have all this external information.  He’s not saying that the reader can find these signs in some other (infallible) source.  He’s not saying that we are obligated to hunt for and collect all these acts to preserve them for the church.  And he’s not saying that we need to gather them into some new infallible category alongside Scripture.  

No, he’s simply saying that there were too many deeds, sayings and signs to be included in his book.  In fact, there are more than could ever be collected on earth (John 21:25), but these (in John’s gospel) are sufficient to cause one to believe.  Reading anything else into the passage is irresponsible Bible interpretation.

Conclusion

If anyone says he has access to everything Jesus ever said, he is a liar.  No person, institution, or church has this information.  The point is, we don’t need access to everything that Jesus ever said.  But Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work when it comes to doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In other words, correct doctrine comes from Scripture, not Tradition.  That doesn’t mean that we can’t learn things from the fathers, history or Tradition, but these things will not be infallible like Scripture is.

I am not saying that the things He said (outside of Scripture) were unimportant, but that we just don’t have access to all of them.  Each and every one of these things He said were no doubt very important and infallible – and none of it returned void, but it accomplished its godly goal (Isaiah 55:11).

But what we see is Catholics taking liberties with this passage (John 20:30-31) and making unfounded assumptions.  They think that every time Scripture uses, or alludes to, the term “tradition” in a positive sense, it is talking of Catholic “Sacred Tradition.”  But that’s just begging the question.

We have asked the one question about Sacred Tradition that they never can seem to answer: What exactly is Sacred Tradition?  Don’t give us examples of it, but tell us exactly what it contains.  All of it, not some nebulous, ever-increasing and growing entity that changes year by year through “development of doctrine.”

That is the Protestant challenge to Catholics.

There is so much more I would have liked to have covered in Lonely Pilgrim’s article, but I will stop here.  Perhaps, if there is enough interest from readers to address more of it, I may do a “Part 2.”

See also this article on Tradition:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

WHAT ABOUT TRADITION?

The Bible tells us of only one inspired (God-breathed) and absolutely trustworthy source of information for the church today. Only this source can infallibly (without error) supply us with doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And this source is Scripture, itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It equips us for every good work. As our ultimate rule of faith, it is more than sufficient. It is God, Himself, speaking to us (Matthew 22:31-32).

However, Catholics have another source, or rule of faith, along with, and supposedly EQUAL TO, the Scriptures. According to the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal…Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit…As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'" (CCC #80, #81, #82)

So we see that in Catholicism, “Sacred Tradition” is on the same level as the Bible. Therefore, according to the Catholic Church, Tradition must also be infallible, since both it and Scripture are to be honored with the SAME level of “devotion and reverence.”


The Big Question

But how does the Catholic Church define tradition? They speak of small “t” traditions, which are only “disciplines,” like not eating meat on Friday, or observing certain holy days, etc. These can be changed by the Church, if they so desire. But they also have big “T” Traditions, which are the main and binding teachings (doctrines) that allegedly cannot be changed.

But, what about an actual, meaningful definition of Tradition from the Catholic Church? What is it, precisely? What does it consist of? And where can we actually find all of it? Some Catholics will say that Tradition is the “living and growing truth.” Or it is the “common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.” Still, others say that it is the “sense of the faithful.” The Second Vatican Council says that tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, 8, 1) Or, maybe it is what former Pope Pius IX arrogantly proclaimed: “I AM TRADITION!” In light of these extremely vague definitions, it seems that Tradition can become anything that the Catholic Church wants it to be. The Catholic concept of Tradition is so broad and so vague that it seems to be a subjective assortment of teachings, practices, historical events, and interpretations of fathers, along with an unknown number of doctrinal "developments.” But, what are the parameters of such a rule of faith? How does one know if he goes beyond the borders of Tradition? And how can the Catholic Church answer these questions without using circular reasoning?

So again, we must ask, “What is it?” Is there an official, unchanging, “infallible” list of Catholic Traditions that we can turn to, so that we can know for sure? No, there isn’t. Interestingly, the Catholic Church claims that only she can authentically interpret this Tradition (CCC #100). Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? But this is simply circular reasoning…like saying, ”It is true, because we SAY so.” In this way, the Catholic Church can force new (and false) doctrines onto the people at will. So, it is just too dangerous to ascribe infallibility to something so vague, so unclear.


Tradition in the Bible

But, tradition (Greek, “paradosis”), according to Scripture, is simply the biblical principles and teachings that were handed down from the apostles to each successive generation. The Bible does use the word in a positive way, but more often in the negative sense. There is good tradition (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:6), and there is bad tradition (e.g., Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18). Acceptable tradition is linked with the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Traditions that are acceptable will either be in the Bible, or they will line up with the principles of the Bible; and those that don’t, should be rejected.


The “Oral” and the “Written”

There is a popular response from Catholics who try to defend their Tradition’s “equality” with Scripture. They contend that we don’t have ALL of God’s Word unless we have the “written” (Scripture), and the “oral” (Sacred Tradition), and they quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us."

Catholics often use this verse in an attempt to show a distinction or a difference between “infallible oral" teachings and "infallible written" teachings, insisting that they are EQUAL and we need BOTH today. According to them, the Bible is not enough as a rule of faith.

First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."

So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.

Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to. Yet, what infallible information do we have from Paul that is not found in the Scriptures? None. Does the Catholic Church have any infallible statements from Jesus (or any of the apostles), apart from the Bible? No, they don’t. Then why do they claim to have this extrabiblical (i.e., outside of the Bible) Tradition that they say Paul is speaking of, if they can’t tell us what it is? Remember, we don’t have access today to all of the information that Paul taught them.

It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. There may even be other writings that Paul sent them that we don't have access to today. But we don't NEED to know every single thing he told them. We can know the essence of what he taught them by looking to God-breathed Scripture, which we do have available to us. But we can be sure that the things that Paul wrote to them will not contradict the things he spoke to them. This is his whole point. They would be the same basic message, the same Gospel.


The Test

But this Catholic argument just begs the question. It's easy to say, "Oh, yeah, that was us back then and that was our tradition, and that was the same church as ours, back in Jesus’ day", etc. It's easy to claim a traditional "link" to the past, but it's another thing to prove the legitimacy of that "link"… especially when it contains teachings that contradict Scripture.

If Catholics want to claim that Paul was speaking of infallible Tradition as something different from Scripture, then they have the responsibility to do three things:

1) Identify exactly what that "Tradition" is,
2) Demonstrate that it is indeed DIFFERENT from Scripture, and
3) Demonstrate that it is Apostolic and infallible...

And she must do this WITHOUT CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But we don’t see this type of proof from the Catholic Church. In fact, we don't see anything near "extraordinary proof." Remember, any message today claiming to be "Apostolic Tradition" must line up with, and be tested by, Scripture (Mark 7:1-13).

History has shown us that when anything is considered “equal” to Scripture, it will eventually, and inevitably, override Scripture and produce unbiblical doctrines (like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, etc.). Catholic Tradition supposedly complements the Bible, but has actually steered multitudes away from the pure truth of the Scriptures… perhaps gradually, yet surely.

Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ showed us that the Pharisees and the scribes were guilty of usurping the authority of Scripture with their own traditions (Matthew 15:1-9). The Catholic Church is guilty of that same error today.