Monday, July 11, 2022

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