Sacred
Tradition is a really big deal in Catholicism.
It is one of the foundational “legs” on which the Catholic Church
stands. According to the Catholic
Church’s Vatican II document Dei Verbum:
“Therefore
both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”
(chapter 2, paragraph 9, emphasis added)
In other
words, they are to be considered equal.
So if Scripture is infallible/God-breathed, then (according to them) so
is Sacred Tradition. One is not above
the other.
But is there
biblical evidence for this Catholic concept of infallible Sacred Tradition? Catholics will usually point to several
Scriptures to make their case, but they will turn to one particular verse more
than any other:
“Therefore, brethren,
stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word
or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
And
Catholics will say, “See, there it is.
We must obey BOTH the oral tradition (“… by word”) and the written
tradition (“… [by] our epistle,”), i.e., Scripture.
When Catholics
see the terms “oral” and “written” in this context, they treat it as though they
are two different (and equal) bodies
of information, and that we need BOTH of them to have the complete picture, God’s
word in two different forms. They see Tradition
as something outside of, and distinguishable
from Scripture, otherwise it is all just the written Word of God.
A Closer Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Ok, let’s
actually look at the context of this
passage to see what the apostle Paul is actually saying about this. Since this is the main and pivotal verse for
Catholic Sacred Tradition, we must make sure that we understand Paul. Here is the context:
In chapter
2, we see that the Thessalonians were disturbed about news they had received, i.e.,
they were “shaken” and “troubled” (2:2). Someone made them believe that the
Day of the Lord had already come upon them (v. 2), apparently through a letter,
falsely claiming to be from Paul. In
this second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul goes on to calm their
fears and he reminds them that he had already told them in person (orally) all
about the timing of the Day of the Lord (v. 5) and that they need not worry. Then, after explaining it to them again in
this letter (v. 6-12), he says to hold fast to those traditions (those teachings
about the Day of the Lord that he first handed on to them) (v. 15), whether they received
them orally, or by writing. This is
important – Paul is telling them that the message he gave to them at the
beginning (orally) is the SAME message he was writing to them now! How could they have forgotten already? He did not give them two different messages, but the same one in two forms (written and
oral)! He is NOT telling them that we
don’t have all of God’s Word unless we have it in both written form and some
kind of oral form. This is where
Catholics deviate from Scripture.
Paul is
basically asking them, “Why are you so disturbed by this letter that was
supposedly from my hand? Any true letter
from me will agree with the message
that I already gave to you in person! I
will never contradict the original message I gave to you in person, just as I
would never give you a different gospel than the one I already gave to you
(e.g., Galatians 1:6-9).”
Paul’s
distinction between the two forms was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but the very opposite – to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Catholics seem to think that the Word of God
is somehow emasculated if it is only
contained in infallible writing, but that is certainly not the case. The point Paul was making here was that you
can forever trust what Jesus and the
apostles have given you! His point was not that infallible revelation for the
church always has to be in two forms.
But the
content of this “oral” aspect of Sacred Tradition is now in question, and this
brings us to our main point…
For God’s Sake, Show Us What It Is!
Again, what
exactly was/is the content of this “Sacred Tradition”? The Catholic Church is more than happy to
point out the contents of their infallible seventy-three books of Scripture
(the written Tradition) to all who would ask.
But many (both Catholics and Protestants) have often asked about the
contents of this oral Sacred
Tradition, as well. But curiously, we
find that the Catholic Church is unable (or not so anxious) to expose the
contents of this “infallible” oral entity.
Oh sure,
they’ll give us some incredibly vague, hazy and imprecise “definitions,” for
example, it is said to be:
“… not
simply a collection of pious practices but the living transmission of Christ’s
teaching entrusted to the apostles and perpetuated in the Church under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit.” See here:
https://catholicus.eu/en/sacred-tradition-an-unchanging-pillar-of-faith-in-a-changing-world/
But how can
the person in the pew gain an understanding of such phraseology? It seems the Church is purposely being vague
when it talks like this.
According to
the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“This living
transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is
distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and
transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes…
’” (CCC #78 – emphasis added)
Any honest
person has to admit that this is just too nebulous to help anyone to know its
content.
Sacred
Tradition has also been called “the living and growing truth of Christ
contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and
common worship of the Church.” See here:
https://markpshea.com/archive_sheavings/what-is-sacred-tradition/
This is
simply more obfuscation.
According to
one other source:
“Catholic
Tradition is the living transmission of the faith…”
That tells
us absolutely nothing meaningful.
“…
encompassing teachings, practices and worship passed down from the apostles
through the church over centuries…”
Again,
nothing. Which practices/teachings/worship?
And how do we know they actually came from the apostles? It would sure help if the Catholic Church could
be more specific, especially if we
are talking about something that is supposedly infallible. Protestants are
not looking for examples of Sacred
Tradition, but the whole of it! Where exactly can this “infallible”
information be found? How can any generation
know that the correct information has been properly handed down to them if no
one can articulate exactly what it is?
One source
calls it an “unbroken transmission of
Christ’s revelation” and then names things that are/include non-infallible things (e.g., liturgy,
creeds, writings of the church fathers, spiritual practices).
These are
just a tiny sampling of the Catholic Church’s attempt at a usable definition of
Sacred Tradition. But none of these are
convincing. The Church is not being
transparent at all and these “definitions” are meaningless! They might sound good, but are absolutely
useless to help the common person understand what its contents actually are.
The Church Retaliates
Ok, when
pressed to provide a meaningful definition of Sacred Tradition, the Church will
often retaliate with comments like this:
- · “Where is ‘Sacred Tradition’ in the
Protestant faith?”
If
Protestant churches do claim some
kind of “Sacred Tradition,” they have the same obligation to show it as the
Catholic Church does. If anyone claims to have any kind of
Tradition, it is their
responsibility, their burden of proof
to show what it is. You can’t just say
something is infallible, and not even be able to tell us what it is!
- · Is this really the question for you Protestants… if we Catholics would
indeed actually show you the list of all Tradition, the real question is,
“Would you then become Catholic?”
Nice try,
but the answer is no. Asking the
Catholic Church to show us what Tradition is, is only the beginning of the work ahead of you!
Answering the “Tradition location question” is just the FIRST step! There are many, many more logical and
biblical issues to settle before any Protestant should even think about
becoming Catholic. By the way, I could
reciprocate and ask, “If you Catholics CAN’T show us this list, will YOU become
Protestant?
- · Your request is unreasonable! Sacred Tradition is not just a “static” entity
that can be “listed,” but is “living,” “unchangeable,” “dynamic,” and it is
something that is practiced and it develops over time. One priest said, “Asking for a list of Sacred
Traditions is a bit like asking, ‘What is culture and where can I find a list
of it?’ It is not that simple.”
Well, you
know what? Culture has nothing to do with infallibility, while this Tradition supposedly specifically does. If something is considered infallible, it
must be validly identified. The Catholic
Church certainly fails to do that!
They like to
claim that Sacred Tradition is the “lived experience” of the Church, but this
is far too broad a description. Let me
ask a question – Wouldn’t the pedophilia in the Catholic Church also be part of
the “lived experience” of many of its victims?
So, is THAT rightly considered part of Sacred Tradition, as well? After all, it is a real experience, isn’t it?
This frequently-used “lived experience” phrase is simply meaningless
when describing Sacred Tradition. There
were millions of “lived experiences” in the history of the church, many of
which were bad. The Catholic Church is
purposely deflecting the question of what its Tradition is and where it can be
found.
Let’s Be Honest
Ok,
Catholics, let’s be honest. If you
wanted some specific information from a Protestant, especially if it was claimed
to be infallible, and the Protestant answered you with such vague and
meaningless terms like the Church does, you would (rightly) accuse him of
deflecting or withholding the desired information. You would claim that he was simply
obfuscating and insulting your intelligence with such phrases.
And this is exactly what happens when Catholics tell
us that Sacred Tradition is “the living transmission of the faith,” or “the
common life, worship and teaching of the Catholic faith,” or “the unbroken
transmission of Christ’s revelation,” etc., etc. These are simply nebulous and meaningless
descriptions of something that is supposed to be equal to Scripture! The fact that you withhold any meaningful
description of this Tradition, shows us that you don’t really know exactly what
it is. Otherwise, you’d be glad to tell
us.
Conclusion
Does anyone,
especially the common man, have time to read/research 2000 years of church
history? Because it seems that this is
what it would take for one to have any clue of what “Sacred Tradition” is.
If Sacred
Tradition is THAT “living” and THAT “dynamic,” and THAT elusive and uncertain –
if it’s THAT hard to pin down, then we have an obligation to proclaim that no
such entity can claim, by any biblical standard, to be infallible.
When
Cardinal Guidi of Bologna pointed out to Pope Pius IX that his (the pope’s)
views on papal infallibility were not supported by Sacred Tradition, Pius
roared, “I AM TRADITION!” In one short
statement, the pope said out loud what everybody already knew: that Tradition,
in effect, is whatever the pope says it
is! But the corrupt and power-hungry
Pope Pius IX was at least more honest
about the definition of Sacred Tradition than the Church has ever been. Pius, in his private meeting with Guidi,
didn’t try to sugarcoat it or offer vague and nonsensical definitions, as we
see so many do today.
It seems
that none of the Church’s popes, councils, “infallible” documents, or its
modern apologists are able to convincingly identify this elusive and baffling
entity the Church calls Tradition.
Therefore, Sacred Tradition, a foundational claim of the Catholic
Church, suffers an identity crisis about which Catholics should be quite embarrassed.
When I pressed Catholics to give examples of these oral traditions one of them answered:
ReplyDelete2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not a general blessing or affirmation of oral teaching as opposed to written teaching, as if these are two separate teachings, in fact, no reference is made here to any unwritten “sacred tradition,” it simply refers to apostolic teaching, “from us.”
Paul was giving to them and us in writing what he previously taught face to face. The phrase “by word of mouth or by letter from us” refers to the same apostolic teachings, that what was spoken was also what was written.
This includes:
Apostolic Teaching: The core doctrines about Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and teachings, which Paul delivered both orally and in writing. This includes the gospel message and instructions on Christian living, as seen in his letters (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2).
Moral and Ethical Instructions: Practical guidance on how to live as a Christian, such as instructions on holiness, love, and community behavior (1 Corinthians 6:12-20, 13:1-13, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 5:12-22).
Liturgical Practices: Early Christian practices like prayer, worship, and the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), as well as proper behavior in worship, such as head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:4-16) and orderly participation in gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).
Eschatological Teachings: Specifically relevant to 2 Thessalonians, Paul likely refers to teachings about the second coming of Christ, the "day of the Lord," and events surrounding it, correcting misunderstandings in the community (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).
LEARN TO READ THE TEXTS!!!!
What about this?
When I pressed Catholics to give examples of these oral traditions one of them answered:
Delete"2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not a general blessing or affirmation of oral teaching as opposed to written teaching, as if these are two separate teachings, in fact, no reference is made here to any unwritten “sacred tradition,” it simply refers to apostolic teaching, “from us.”
Paul was giving to them and us in writing what he previously taught face to face. The phrase “by word of mouth or by letter from us” refers to the same apostolic teachings, that what was spoken was also what was written.
This includes:
Apostolic Teaching: The core doctrines about Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and teachings, which Paul delivered both orally and in writing. This includes the gospel message and instructions on Christian living, as seen in his letters (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2).
Moral and Ethical Instructions: Practical guidance on how to live as a Christian, such as instructions on holiness, love, and community behavior (1 Corinthians 6:12-20, 13:1-13, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 5:12-22).
Liturgical Practices: Early Christian practices like prayer, worship, and the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), as well as proper behavior in worship, such as head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:4-16) and orderly participation in gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).
Eschatological Teachings: Specifically relevant to 2 Thessalonians, Paul likely refers to teachings about the second coming of Christ, the "day of the Lord," and events surrounding it, correcting misunderstandings in the community (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).
LEARN TO READ THE TEXTS!!!!"
What the catholic said is in quotes. Yes, he said "Learn to read the texts"
Ok, Anonymous,
DeleteThanks for clearing that up. I just wanted to make sure of who was saying what.
I think I agree with most of what this Catholic person is actually saying here, if I’m understanding him/her correctly. The only thing that I would point out is that in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul was speaking here SPECIFICALLY about the Day of the Lord events, and not necessarily the core doctrines, moral and ethical instructions or liturgical practices.
If you don’t mind me asking, what was YOUR response to this Catholic?
I didnt respond him, but I would respond that they say they have the fullness of truth because they have the written tradtions and the oral traditions but when asked about the oral they only point to scripture. They say this oral tradition they possess is inspired and infallible and is also the word of God , but they never show it. They forcefully say we have to obey it, but they can say what it is. So they are making no sense.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI agree whole-heartedly! Like you said, they say that you HAVE TO OBEY IT, but they can't tell us what it is! Pretty strange for something that is "infallible"!
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, is everything here in your comment the words of Catholics? I am not sure if your words are interspersed here as well. It is not clearly marked by quotes or anything. Who is it that’s saying “Learn to read the texts!!!!” – you or the Catholic? Just let me know if this whole thing is the Catholic response and I will get back to you. Thank you!
Hi Russell, I was glad to read this latest monthly post of yours.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Catholic “tradition” is all the extra-biblical teaching and practices that set it apart from a true biblical faith. As such, then, it would make sense to Protestants that none of it can be substantiated or validated to our satisfaction. (Indeed, it is Catholic “tradition” that caused me to reject Catholicism, once I actually read the Bible, as it was all clearly manmade add-ons to true Christianity.) Catholic “tradition” is not sacred at all--it is detestable--and it certainly is not equal to sacred Scripture, since it essentially stands in opposition to it!
When Paul speaks of “tradition” in 2 Thess. 2:15, he is referring to the teaching of the Lord Jesus passed to the apostles that then became part of Scripture--not things he made up on his own, which he then presented as God’s Word, like the RCC has blatantly done. The RCC cannot point to Paul’s words in their case, as their extra-biblical dogmas were created long after Paul wrote those words and the canon of Scripture was closed.
It is shameful that the RCC reveres their “tradition” as much as it does, as doing so demotes the faithful adherence to Scripture and keeps the true gospel of grace--smothered by all that dogma--from so many. In the end, Catholic “tradition” only serves to prove that Roman Catholicism is merely a religion and not the one true apostolic faith.
Thanks for your comment, Lorna. I agree, and it seems that much of this Sacred Tradition favors or leans toward uniquely-Catholic teachings.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Catholic Church invented the concept of "sacred tradition" so that it didn't have to find biblical support for its teachings.
ReplyDeleteRussell, your opening claim already shows that you misunderstand what Catholics mean when they speak of Sacred Tradition. You assume that “equal veneration” means Scripture and Tradition must be two equal piles of infallible sentences, as though Catholics believe in a second Bible floating somewhere outside the written text. But Dei Verbum never says that. It teaches that Scripture and Tradition transmit one apostolic deposit in two modes. Your interpretation reveals that you are critiquing categories you have not taken the time to understand. When you turn to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you narrow Paul’s use of paradosis to a single eschatological lesson he previously gave the Thessalonians. But Paul uses the term elsewhere to refer to the ongoing body of apostolic teaching, not a one‑time reminder. Your reading is not supported by Greek usage, by the broader Pauline corpus, or by reputable exegetical scholarship. It shows that you are unfamiliar with how Paul actually uses the word “tradition,” and your argument depends on shrinking Paul’s meaning so you can avoid the obvious implication that Paul commands Christians to hold fast to binding oral apostolic teaching.
ReplyDeleteYou then insist that Paul’s oral teaching must be identical to his written teaching, but you never demonstrate this from Scripture. You simply assert it because your theology requires it. Catholic theology teaches that revelation is one, but its transmission is twofold. You collapse “unity of revelation” into “exhaustive textualization,” which is not a biblical claim. This is another example of you critiquing a position Catholics do not hold. When you demand, “For God’s sake, show us what it is,” you reveal that you think Tradition must be a catalog of sentences. But no Christian community before the 1500s ever understood apostolic teaching that way. Tradition is the living transmission of the apostolic faith—expressed in liturgy, creeds, sacramental practice, and doctrinal definitions. Your insistence on a list shows that you have not engaged the historical reality of how Christianity functioned for its first fifteen centuries.
You complain that Catholic definitions are “vague,” but the Catechism is precise within the theological framework it uses. The problem is not vagueness; the problem is that you do not understand the framework. You want Tradition to be a second Bible, but Catholic theology explicitly denies that. Your inability to grasp the definitions is not evidence of Catholic obscurity—it is evidence that you are critiquing a system you have not studied deeply. When you ask where the “exact content” of Tradition can be found, the answer is straightforward: the Magisterium. Sacred Tradition is not a loose cloud of ideas; it is the apostolic faith preserved and authoritatively interpreted by the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter. You want Tradition to be a book. Catholic theology says Tradition is the Church’s living memory of apostolic teaching. Your question is based on a category error.
You portray Catholic responses as evasions, but they are simply correcting your mistaken assumptions. You want Tradition to be a static list; Catholics explain that Tradition is the apostolic deposit preserved through the Church’s teaching office. You interpret this correction as deflection because you do not understand the underlying theological categories. This is not Catholic evasion—it is your unfamiliarity with the subject. Your “lived experience” objection, where you invoke pedophilia, is a textbook example of category confusion. Sacred Tradition refers to apostolic teaching, not anything that happens in the Church. You conflate moral failure with doctrinal transmission. This is not serious theological argumentation; it is rhetorical shock meant to distract from your misunderstanding. It demonstrates ignorance of what Tradition actually means.
ReplyDeleteWhen you claim Catholics “don’t know what Tradition is,” you overlook the fact that every major Catholic theologian—from Irenaeus to Augustine to Aquinas to Ratzinger—has written extensively on it. The problem is not that Catholics cannot explain Tradition; the problem is that you expect Tradition to be something it is not. You critique a caricature, not the real doctrine. This reveals that you have not engaged the primary sources with scholarly rigor. Finally, your conclusion that Tradition cannot be infallible because it is “hard to pin down” is not a theological argument but an expression of impatience. Difficulty does not imply nonexistence. The Trinity is difficult. The hypostatic union is difficult. Inspiration is difficult. And your quotation of Pius IX (“I am Tradition!”) is historically disputed and not found in any authoritative source. You use it because it fits your narrative, not because it is reliable. This shows a lack of historical rigor.
(Part 1)
DeleteHello Arnold,
Thank you for your comments.
You stated:
“You assume that ‘equal veneration’ means Scripture and Tradition must be two equal piles of infallible sentences, as though Catholics believe in a second Bible floating somewhere outside the written text.”
We could only wish that it was made up of “infallible sentences.” That way, it would at least be falsifiable. Asking for clarity is not an unreasonable request.
You said:
“But Dei Verbum… teaches that Scripture and Tradition transmit one apostolic deposit in two modes.”
Yes, and one is easily identified, while the other is not. That’s the whole point of the article. You can call it another “infallible mode” if you want to, but you need to be able to tell us clearly what it is, and its extent. Otherwise, it is an infallible vapor.
You said:
“When you turn to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you narrow Paul’s use of paradosis to a single eschatological lesson he previously gave the Thessalonians. But Paul uses the term elsewhere to refer to the ongoing body of apostolic teaching, not a one-time reminder.”
But 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is indeed a specific reference to a single eschatological lesson as I pointed out in the article. And I never said that this is the only reference to Tradition/paradosis. Of course there are positive references of the term elsewhere, but we have to deal with each one in its own context to try and identify what exactly Paul is talking about in each case. You say that it is part of an ongoing body of apostolic teaching, but in some cases, Paul is somewhat ambiguous. If the apostle is not at least somewhat specific in identifying what he means when he says “tradition,” then we just have to accept the fact that it was intended only for the recipient to know. You can’t just insert your own thoughts here.
I think that it is quite arrogant of the Catholic Church to usurp these “Tradition” passages and say, “Oh, yeah, that was US (and only us) that Paul is referring to; it’s all about the Catholic Church!” This is absolute assumption and usurpation.
(Part 2)
DeleteSince the use of the term “tradition” is not always clear in Paul’s epistles, the burden is on the Catholic if he wants to prove that Paul was speaking of some infallible, unwritten “ongoing body of apostolic teaching” to somehow “aid Scripture.” By the way, do we even have an apostle’s words apart from Scripture? No, we don’t.
You wrote:
“You then insist that Paul’s oral teaching must be identical to his written teaching, but you never demonstrate this from Scripture.”
For the record, I never used the word “identical.” I said that it was the same message in the written and the oral. And it is indeed demonstrated in this very passage (v. 5). In the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the oral and the written are the same basic message. I’m not saying that this is the case for the other uses of tradition in Paul’s letters. I was specifically referring to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the very verse, the most popular verse, that Catholics assert as proof of infallible Tradition. But Paul is not requesting or requiring the “aid of Tradition,” as some Catholics think.
You said:
“When you demand, ‘For God’s sake, show us what it is,’ you reveal that you think Tradition must be a catalog of sentences. But no Christian community before the 1500’s ever understood apostolic teaching that way.”
Ok, so Sacred Tradition is not a “catalog of sentences,” but at least that would be a concrete example in identifying it. But Catholics will have to do a lot better than using the meaningless definitions they have used to explain to Protestants (and fellow Catholics) what it is.
And concerning the understanding of “apostolic teaching” before the 1500’s, I’ll trust the Scriptures to tell me what apostolic teaching is: the God-breathed teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles, not fallible men who came after the fact.
(Part 3)
DeleteYou said:
“When you ask where the ‘exact content’ of Tradition can be found, the answer is straightforward: the Magisterium.”
No, the answer is anything but straightforward! None of the Catholic definitions of Sacred Tradition are straightforward. But what you just admitted here lines up precisely with what I wrote in the article about Pius IX when he said, “I AM TRADITION!” The pope IS the Magisterium. And even if what you said at the end of your last post, i.e., that the story of Pius IX is “historically disputed,” the point still stands. The pope IS the Magisterium and Tradition is ultimately what he says it is. I think that this is the best and most meaningful definition I’ve seen so far. But Catholics don’t seem to want to admit this.
You stated:
“Your ‘lived experience’ objection, where you invoke pedophilia, is a textbook example of category confusion. Sacred Tradition refers to apostolic teaching, not anything that happens in the Church.”
I am aware that Sacred Tradition refers to “apostolic teaching,” but introducing ambiguous phrases like “lived experience” suggest something much broader. Does anyone even KNOW what the phrase means? I would think that anything and everything that happens in the Church throughout history is a “lived experience”! Again, this is simply purposeful vagueness.
There is plenty apostolic teaching in Scripture, but there is nothing in the New Testament that suggest that “lived experience” is part of any kind of infallible apostolic teaching.
You said:
“Your inability to grasp the definitions is not evidence of Catholic obscurity – it is evidence that you are critiquing a system you have not studied deeply.”
It seems that when Protestants disagree with Catholics, it is always because the Protestant “just doesn’t understand,” or has just not studied (fallible) church history, or the (fallible) fathers enough. But, it’s funny –when Protestants say that Catholics should go deeper into the infallible Scriptures to find the truth, that’s not acceptable to them.
"This reveals that you have not engaged the primary sources with scholarly rigor." This is a problem with almost everything his blog addresses. I look forward to a response to Arnold's comments.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a well-researched reply!
DeleteThis reveals that you have not engaged the primary sources with scholarly rigor. So true.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations! You've decided to play the role of a cheerleader here. I'll be waiting for Russell's reply to Arnold as well, but he's got a life beyond the computer screen.
DeleteNot cheerleading at all, merely agreeing that Russell rarely engages with or even has any familiarity with primary sources and that is evident throughout his blog. In fact he is often dismissive of those sources.
DeleteThat's the kind of thing cultists routinely say when they get confronted with facts that contradict their deeply held beliefs. I have seen that sort of nonsense before.
DeleteNot sure what you are on about with the cultist remark. While we are at it when it comes to cheerleading, you may want to look in the mirror. As to to Russell's lack of use/knowledge of primary sources, he has admitted as much in his comments previously on this blog when the subject of early church father was brought into a discussion.
DeleteIt’s genuinely impressive how confidently you cite “he admitted it once somewhere” like that’s a primary source instead of just your favorite campfire story. And it’s even funnier watching you lecture someone about mirrors when you’re clearly terrified of what you’d see in yours.
DeleteJust one example, "I have not studied the fathers much and it is not my area of strong interest. I'll leave that up to others to study. To be honest, I think a person is much better off focusing on studying the Scriptures.". More out there if you spend some time researching his blog and his comments rather than playing defense for him with childish rejoinders.
DeleteAww, did I hurt your wittle feelings? It’s adorable watching you treat a simple “I haven’t specialized in that area” as if it magically validates your sweeping claims. It’s unfair to expect one guy to be an expert in everything, and it costs a fortune to build a library of credible sources across interrelated fields. You wouldn’t know anything about that, obviously.
DeleteBut if confusing “he hasn’t studied X deeply” with “therefore my narrative is correct” helps you cope, by all means keep proving you’re an idiot.
Jesse,
DeleteNo feelings hurt. You’re still dodging the actual point.
Russell openly said he has not studied the Fathers much and prefers people focus on Scripture instead. That’s not “I haven’t specialized in every sub-field.” That’s a deliberate choice by someone who routinely makes historical claims about what the early Church believed and practiced—especially claims aimed against Catholicism.
The writings of the Fathers are not some expensive rare-book collection. Nearly all of them are freely available online (CCEL, New Advent, earlychristianwritings.com, etc.). Anyone who wants to check the primary sources can do so in minutes. Choosing not to engage them while still pronouncing on early Christian history is a choice, not an unavoidable limitation.
If the counter-argument is simply “he doesn’t have to be an expert in everything,” fine—then he also shouldn’t treat his own limited reading as sufficient to dismiss centuries of primary evidence. That’s the issue. Everything else is just noise.
Anonymous,
DeleteYou’ve repeated that same quote so many times it’s starting to feel like you think it’s a mic‑drop, but it still doesn’t do what you need it to. Russell saying he hasn’t studied the Fathers much doesn’t magically make your interpretation correct, doesn’t validate your historical claims, and doesn’t turn your personal preferences into “scholarly rigor.” It just means he didn’t specialize in the exact corner of the field you’ve decided is the only one that matters.
And your big “the Fathers are free online” revelation is cute. Yes, they’re accessible. That doesn’t automatically make your reading of them authoritative, nor does it transform your argument from hand‑waving into substance. You keep pointing at the existence of sources instead of demonstrating that they actually support anything you’re asserting.
So until you show something concrete instead of recycling the same line and hoping repetition will make it profound, your point stays unproven, your criticism stays hollow, and your argument folds the moment someone stops nodding politely.
But if scrolling past a few PDFs makes you feel like you’ve ascended to the rank of Church historian, I’m sure the delusion is at least a comforting upgrade from your usual level.
My aguiments are way better than yours. You have no chance against me, ABSOLUTEY NONE. MY aguiments are more factual than you any day of the week.
DeleteHere’s the adjusted version:
DeleteJesse,
You’re still missing it.
I’m not claiming the quote is some automatic win for my side. I’m pointing out that Russell, who regularly makes historical claims about the early Church (especially against Catholic positions), has openly said he hasn’t studied the Fathers much, that it’s not an area of strong interest for him, and that he thinks people are better off focusing on the Scriptures instead. That’s his own statement.
The sources are free and easy to access. So when someone chooses to prioritize Scripture over the Fathers while still speaking as if he knows what the early Church taught, that’s worth noticing. You keep trying to turn this into “prove every Catholic claim from the Fathers right now or your point is hollow.” That’s not the issue I raised.
You’re free to disagree with my reading of the Fathers. But pretending Russell’s admitted preference and lack of study is irrelevant, or that free online access somehow doesn’t matter, is just dodging.
Listen, my arguiments are far better than yours. My arguiments are grounded in the teachings of Christ's Church which makes you a fool.
DeleteAnonymous, you keep treating that one quote like it’s the Rosetta Stone of online debate, but all it really proves is that you’ve built your entire argument on a single sentence you think everyone should salute. Russell saying he hasn’t spent his life buried in the fathers doesn’t magically turn you into the custodian of early church history, and it doesn’t give you a free pass to declare yourself the referee of what counts as “worth noticing.”
DeleteYou keep insisting you’re raising some subtle point, but the moment anyone asks you to back it with something concrete, you retreat into the same safe little corner: “That’s not what I meant.” Of course it isn’t. It never is. Because the second you have to produce actual content instead of commentary about content, the whole performance collapses.
Your "argument" isn’t deep. It’s just narrow. And you keep mistaking repetition for relevance.
And honestly, watching you crawl out of your cave one night, squint up at the moon like it owed you an explanation, and somehow end up getting mooned is the most fitting thing I’ve ever heard about you.
You're a MORON. The Bible is VASTLY more important as a body of literature than any of the church fathers. It is literally the backbone of the Western literary canon. The church fathers never would have developed their ideas without it.
Delete“I don’t have receipts, but trust me bro.”-Anonymous
ReplyDeleteToo many anonymous commenters here and I suspect one commenter impersonation.
ReplyDeleteWho cares? You seem to be obsessed with trying to nail your non-argument down my throat. The fact remains that you are just some creep.
DeleteAll right Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, I do dare to prioritize Scripture over the fathers. And for the record, Jesse is right about Scripture. It is not just A primary source, it is THE primary source. But you (and many other Catholics) just don’t care about that.
But the gig’s up. I know who you are, Perfect Mugwagwa, and you know that you have been banned from my blog several times before, and I want everyone to know that. Repent. You have proven yourself to be a constant trouble-maker, so don’t come back.
I did do a quick read through of the article, and I agree with the reply of Arnold about clarifying the nature of Sacred Tradition. I would say firstly though that there are present some actual more concrete examples of sacred tradition that bear ramifications on theology as well as Biblical proof texts for Tradition or the presence of important teachings outside Scripture. The authorship of most of the New Testament is sacred tradition and is what provided these texts with the legitimacy needed to be accepted as Scripture by the Catholic Church. It is also important to mention that this tradition is actually in contradiction to what many biblical scholars believe now. It is a good thought experiment if these scholars were present in the 2nd and 3rd century and able to argue in fluent Aramaic or Greek for their case, would we have the New Testament as it is? Perhaps then this flippant Sacred Tradition would have carried for fervently the books to Canonization. The story of Veronica meeting Jesus carrying the cross is extra biblical but is also tradition. In it Christ places the image of His face on the cloth she uses to wipe His blood. This would support the existence of icons. We can also look at later very early texts to see concrete traditions that were circulating like in the didache. There are plenty of other examples, but let us not be exhaustive. Paul says in Acts that Christ says “it is better to give than receive.” This is no where in the gospels, but shows that important teachings of Christ were being circulated without making it into the Gospels. I also disagree with Russell’s reading of the text (ultimately the Achilles heel of Protestantism is the fairness to disagree rationally about conclusions and with nothing to settle it but power) and don’t think Paul is simply saying that what he taught in person should match what he writes or vice versa. This is also clearly absurd to think Paul wrote his letters thinking they would contain the wholeness of the things he wished the churches to believe. He always writes in response to some problems, not to lay out all the specific doctrines Christians now believe. But fundamentally I agree with Arnold pointing to the epistemological issue. Russell can only conceptualize Tradition as a second Scripture because his whole epistemology is grounded in the idea of Sola Scriptura. Although I have pointed to some concrete examples and even proof texts, Russell will not be happy because he wants a Bible of sacred tradition sentences to read. Let's see Russell answer this argument.
ReplyDeleteSean, your whole argument treats “Sacred Tradition” like a grab bag of anything old or interesting: authorship guesses, medieval Veronica stories, stray sayings, all tossed together and declared authoritative. That’s not how Tradition works in your own system. Acts 20:35 doesn’t help you either; Protestants already acknowledge Jesus said more than what’s written, so pointing to an unrecorded saying doesn’t automatically create a second channel of binding revelation. And your line about the Achilles heel of Protestantism being disagreement was the moment the argument gave way to hand waving. If disagreement were fatal, Rome would have collapsed centuries ago. Meanwhile your own system leans on transubstantiation, a doctrine claiming literal flesh with no empirical, chemical, or sensory evidence, which is an actual epistemic liability rather than the imaginary one you tried to pin on Protestants.
DeleteSean,
DeleteI don’t know if English is your first language or not, but I found a lot of what you’re saying is a bit confusing. So, maybe I’m not quite understanding your point.
You stated that you did “a quick read through of the article.” But it seems you put more attention into Arnold’s posts than the article itself. For example, I specifically said in the article that I wasn’t asking for EXAMPLES of Sacred Tradition, which you tried to produce here.
You stated that the story of Veronica was an extra-biblical tradition and it would support the existence of icons. But no one is disputing the existence of icons in the Catholic Church. This story may, or may not be true, but it doesn’t have the weight that Scripture does.
You brought up Jesus’ statement that “… it is better to give than receive” (Acts 20:35) and you said that certain teachings of Christ were being circulated, but didn’t make it into the gospels. But, so what? That doesn’t prove anything. That statement of Jesus still made it into the Scriptures, so we know it’s true.
Concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you said that you “don’t think Paul is simply saying that what he taught in person should match what he writes, or vice versa.” But if you would have read the article a little “less quickly,” you would have seen that this is EXACTLY what Paul was saying and I demonstrate that in the article. Maybe you went through it too quickly, but this would be obvious if you study the context.
You said concerning Paul:
“He always writes in response to some problems, not to lay out all the specific doctrines Christians now believe.”
Apparently, you misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means. It does NOT say that every single thing that we can learn about God MUST be found in the Bible.
Now, I agree that Paul’s letters were corrective in nature, but it is GOD who had Paul (and all the other authors of Scripture) write exactly the things he did to give us the “wholeness” of what He determines is God-breathed. Yes, we can learn from other sources, but God is telling us that Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith for the church today, and He uses Paul to say exactly that (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He points to Scripture as the only infallible “toolbox,” which can equip us for every good work.
Sean, you have pointed out some examples of Sacred Tradition (again, something I didn’t ask for), but again, none of your popes, priests, councils, documents, or Catholic apologists have been able to tell us what this thing is. Yet, you “just know” that it’s infallible. I’m sorry, but that’s just not good enough.
"God is telling us that Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith for the church today, and He uses Paul to say exactly that (2 Timothy 3:16-17)." Except there is no scripture that says that scripture is the only Infallible rule of faith and Paul does say exactly that. Perhaps your statement a fallible understanding.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, yes, my statement is a fallible one, just as all yours are and everyone else's are. So what's your point?
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Except there is no Scripture that says that Scripture is the only Infallible rule of faith and Paul does say exactly that."
How about you exegete 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for us so we can know exactly what Paul is saying?
Sorry.
DeleteThat was a typo on my end. I was correcting your claim that Paul says “exactly” that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. He does not.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. That is the full extent of what Paul wrote. He does not say “only,” “sole,” “exclusive,” or “the only infallible rule of faith.” Those words are yours, not his.
You are free to believe the passage implies sola scriptura. That is an interpretive conclusion, not an exegetical fact. Pretending Paul said “exactly” what your system requires is simply reading your doctrine into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteIt is true that Paul doesn’t use the specific words “only,” “sole,” “exclusive,” or “the only rule of faith.” But you need to be careful of pointing out that specific words are NOT used in biblical passages, because if you want to play that game, we can delve into many passages that Catholics use in an attempt to prove their doctrines and we will find that there is a definite and embarrassing lack of specifically “Catholic” terms.
Yes, Anonymous, let’s let the text speak for itself, like you said. Let’s look at the full context:
This chapter (2 Timothy 3) begins with warnings of evil men and false teaching (getting worse and worse) in the last days (v. 1-9).
He then warns of persecution, evil men and great deception in the church (v. 12-13). Sounds like a pretty bad time for the body of Christ. Then he encourages Timothy to continue in the things that he, himself, had learned from Paul (v. 14). What exactly these things were, he does not reveal to us, so we can only speculate at this point. But then Paul goes on to immediately and specifically mention the Scriptures (v. 15) and commends Timothy to these sacred writings. Why? The apostle Paul is offering the solution for these perilous times, and he is pointing to Scripture as an anchor to avoid being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. This is where Paul claims that (all) Scripture is “God-breathed,” and it is profitable for teaching true doctrine, that it can reprove ungodly behavior, correct error, and instruct all on how to act righteously (v. 16), so that we can be perfect (mature) and thoroughly furnished/equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK (v. 17).
Now if a mechanic was given a toolbox that would equip him to work on ALL cars and perform every good work (mechanically speaking), then there is no need for any other toolbox. This one is sufficient.
The word “sufficient” is not in this passage, but the concept certainly is! This context is establishing a rule of faith here, and there is no other rule of faith, either in this context, or anywhere else in Scripture, that is considered infallible or "God-breathed." Therefore, this particular rule of faith eclipses and replaces any other source that would claim to be infallible.
Also, it is interesting that Paul never says, “Scripture equips you for every good work, EXCEPT for those works found in Tradition.”
And again, in the very next chapter (ch. 4), Paul reiterates what he said in 3:16, and confirms it as the solution:
“1) I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine…”
Notice also 4:6:
“For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.”
Paul was about to be martyred and he dare not fail to tell the church what is of the utmost importance in his last few days. He commands the church to go to the Scriptures, not Tradition.
Russell,
DeleteYou are correct that Paul does not use the words “only,” “sole,” or “exclusive.” That concession matters, because the doctrine of sola scriptura requires precisely that exclusive claim. Without it, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 remains what the text actually is: a strong affirmation of Scripture’s divine inspiration and practical power—not a formal declaration that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
Look carefully at the flow Paul actually gives. In verse 14 he tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom he learned it. The “whom” is not a self-interpreting book; it is Paul and the other apostolic teachers. Only then does Paul point to the sacred writings Timothy has known from childhood. Scripture is presented as a vital, God-breathed instrument within the living transmission of the faith Timothy already received. It is not presented as a standalone, self-sufficient rule that replaces the apostolic teaching office.
Your toolbox analogy overreaches. Saying that Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work affirms its profound usefulness. It does not prove that no other authoritative source of teaching exists, or that the Church’s living voice and the apostolic tradition have been rendered unnecessary. Catholics fully accept that Scripture is inspired and profitable in the ways Paul describes. We do not accept the further inference that it is therefore the only infallible rule.
You note that nothing else in Scripture is called “God-breathed.” True. Yet Scripture itself calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Paul also commands the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The absence of the adjective θεόπνευστος for Tradition does not reduce it to a fallible human opinion any more than the absence of the phrase “sole rule of faith” in 2 Timothy 3 reduces your own claim to an inference.
The early Church understood this relationship clearly. St. Irenaeus wrote: “What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (Against Heresies 3:4:1). He could imagine the faith without a complete written New Testament; he could not imagine it without the living apostolic tradition preserved in the Church.
St. Vincent of Lérins stated the same principle: we must fortify our belief “first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church” (Commonitory 2). And St. Augustine famously declared: “I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5:6).
In chapter 4 Paul urges Timothy to preach the word and to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with sound doctrine. That charge is entirely consistent with a high view of Scripture. It does not convert the earlier verses into a formal principle of sola scriptura, nor does Paul’s approaching death turn an argument from silence into an explicit teaching. An apostle whose own oral instruction carried binding authority is not, in his final days, abolishing that authority in favor of a book-alone principle the early Church never held.
The text elevates Scripture. It does not isolate it from the Church that received, recognized, and handed on both the written and the oral apostolic deposit. That isolation is the later systematic claim, not Paul’s—and not the consistent witness of the Fathers.
Anonymous,
DeleteAgain, in 2 Timothy 4, Paul lets us know that he is going to be martyred. In this chapter and the previous one, Paul had every opportunity to introduce Tradition as the solution to the deception, evil men, and false teaching – but he never does, and this would have been the perfect time to do so! This would have been the perfect time to show that Tradition is equal to Scripture. Don’t you find that a little bit strange if the Catholic concept of Tradition is correct?
You (Catholics) keep saying that there is something else that is infallible, so show everyone this infallible source, but show us from the infallible Scriptures, since we both agree with the Bible as an infallible source.
And then, after you show us this second infallible source in Scripture, do what the article is challenging you to do in the first place: show us exactly what this Sacred Tradition is. It seems that every Catholic who tries to “show” it fails miserably.
Anonymous, I’m glad that you feel that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a strong affirmation of the Bible. But you point to 1 Timothy 3:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and you think that these passages help to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is God-breathed. You are doing the SAME thing here that you are accusing me of doing: you present these as proof of the Church’s “infallibility,” but it never, ever says that! By the way, I have already dealt with these two verses in detail elsewhere in my blog, and neither of these passages helps your argument in the least – in fact, they greatly WEAKEN it.
So, if Scripture provides everything needed for every good work, your Tradition is secondary, at best, and we should only accept the parts of it that line up with Scripture. But the problem is, you can't even show us all the "parts."
Russell,
DeleteYou open by saying that in 2 Timothy 4 Paul, knowing he is about to be martyred, “had every opportunity to introduce Tradition as the solution” and never does. I already addressed that exact point in my previous reply. I wrote:
“In chapter 4 Paul urges Timothy to preach the word and to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with sound doctrine. That charge is entirely consistent with a high view of Scripture. It does not convert the earlier verses into a formal principle of sola scriptura, nor does Paul’s approaching death turn an argument from silence into an explicit teaching. An apostle whose own oral instruction carried binding authority is not, in his final days, abolishing that authority in favor of a book-alone principle the early Church never held.”
You are repeating an argument from silence that I already answered. Paul’s silence about elevating oral tradition to the status of a second formal rule of faith in chapter 4 does not magically transform 3:16-17 into a declaration of sola scriptura. The text simply does not say what your position requires it to say.
Second, you misread what I was doing with 1 Timothy 3:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I was not offering those verses as “proof texts” that the Church is God-breathed or that Sacred Tradition is a second infallible rule in the precise technical sense later defined by Catholic theology. I cited them for a more modest and historically grounded purpose: to show that the New Testament itself does not present Scripture as a self-sufficient, standalone rule operating in isolation from the living apostolic teaching and the Church. In other words, those texts function as a direct counter to the claim that sola scriptura was the operating principle of the apostolic and early Church. They demonstrate that something more was going on—namely, the ongoing transmission of the faith through both written and oral means within the community that Paul calls “the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
That is not the same move you accuse me of making. You are the one who needs 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to function as a formal, exclusive claim (“only,” “sole,” “exclusive”). I do not need 1 Timothy 3:15 or 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to carry that same formal weight for Tradition; I only need them to show that the early Christian picture is fuller and more ecclesial than sola scriptura allows.
Finally, Catholicism does not claim to explain or ground its beliefs from Scripture alone. That is precisely the point of difference. We receive the apostolic deposit as it was handed on—written and unwritten—within the Church that Christ established. Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and uniquely authoritative; it is not, and was never treated by the early Church as, the sole infallible rule in the sense required by the Reformation slogan. The Fathers I cited (Irenaeus, Vincent of Lérins, Augustine) simply confirm what the New Testament itself already implies: the faith was transmitted and safeguarded by more than a self-interpreting book.
You keep demanding that I produce a complete, itemized list of “all the parts” of Sacred Tradition as though it were a second parallel Bible. That demand itself assumes the very sola-scriptura framework under dispute. The early Church did not operate that way, and neither do we.
Anonymous,
DeleteConcerning my demand for “all the parts” of Sacred Tradition, you ended by saying that the early church didn’t operate that way.
I’m not denying that traditions existed throughout church history, I’m saying that they could be identified. That’s the whole point of the article. But to shroud them in grandiose, yet extremely nebulous, terms does nothing to actually identify this Tradition, but relegates it to an infallible vapor.
The point of the article stands.
Ok, neither of us is going to convince the other. We both had our say, and I think it’s time to move on. Thanks for your comments.