Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetic
"Tradition" as Viewed by Popular Roman Catholic Apologists... and a Response
In
the written disputes and published propaganda between
sixteenth-century Protestants and Roman Catholics, the mass-marketing
victory clearly lay in the hands of Rome's detractors. Protestants
out-published Rome's apologists winning the popular opinion. Catholic
works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by
printers. Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists
in their written endeavors.(1)
Now five hundred years later,
current popular Protestant writing produce more self-help tomes,
fictional entertainment, and end times forewarnings than theological
treatises specific to exposing Roman Catholic error. Roman Catholic
writers though have consistently produced popular works specifically
geared toward evangelizing Protestants.(2) One need only visit a
big-chain bookstore and scan the shelves to notice apologetic works
from Roman Catholic authors typically outnumber Protestant works
geared toward defending Reformation principles. Producing works
distinctively for laymen, Rome's apologists have hammered away
specifically at sola fide and sola scriptura. In the
popular Catholic convert book, Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts
Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic,(3)
almost all of those recounting their swim across the Tiber mention
that a rejection of sola scriptura was key in their subsequent
rejection of sola fide.
Indeed a historical irony,
Protestants defending the faith against Rome's popular writers now
find themselves in a similar plight as the sixteenth-century Catholic
apologist. More often than not, works specifically directed to
defending the solas of the Reformation are least likely to find their
way to the bookstore shelf, while Rome's champions have thoroughly
penetrated the mass market.(4) These Catholic apologetic works have
ready and confounding answers to counter the sole authority of
Scripture. A Protestant unfamiliar with Catholic authority
argumentation can easily be befuddled and silenced quickly.
Papal
apologists often have an eager Protestant audience. It is often the
draw of Tradition (5) that so intrigues many Protestants. Catholic
polemicists offer it as an historical and / or interpretive solution
for Protestants lacking any connection to those generations of
Christians who came before. Tradition is put forth as that vehicle
which connects an evangelical with a two thousand year old historical
church. With the acceptance of Tradition, the notion of an historical
hierarchical authority finds easier acceptance. With these other
authorities standing beside sacred scripture, Catholic apologists
seek to establish a basis for promoting a gospel of infused
righteousness obtained through faith, sacraments, and works, in
essence another gospel (Galatians 2:6-9).
Defusing the
Catholic apologetic use of Tradition causes the fall of the entire
system. It needs to be exposed as an incoherent authority, fraught
with double standards, and unable to meet the qualification of
theopneustos (God breathed) revelation. If the scriptures
truly are the believers infallible sole rule of faith, it should
follow necessarily that any other rule claiming a similar pedigree
will be exposed as a counterfeit. Any other infallible rule of faith
will not be consistent with either the facts of the Bible or history.
If the Bible is the only infallible rule, any other alleged
infallible rule will fail as a template to accurately size reality.
While Protestants committed to Reformation principles may currently
lack a voice in the public market, the first step to reversing this
trend is to understand and counter the lynchpin of Catholic
argumentation, Tradition.
What is Tradition According
to Rome?
The official Roman claims for Tradition are found
in statements from the councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.
Trent states the gospel truth and instruction are contained in the
written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been
received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from
the apostles themselves.(6) While Vatican I and II reaffirmed Trent's
statements, Vatican II adds,
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 toward the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.(7)
These
statements, while giving the appearance of clarity, are in actuality
the exact opposite, being oft debated by Catholic scholars as to what
exactly they imply. There is not a consensus opinion as to the exact
content of Tradition, the precise relationship between scripture and
Tradition, and exactly how the vehicle of Tradition functions and
becomes known by the church. Rome's official statements do not
explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part
revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation
contain the entirety of God's revealed truth. Does Tradition function
as the interpreter of scripture, or is it interpreted by scripture,
or do they interpret each other? Is the content of Tradition
confirmed by historical scrutiny, or is it an unwritten opinion only
confirmed by a movement within the developing church? Vatican II
commands Catholics to accept and honor something quite ambiguous. One
wonders if individual Catholics attempting devotion and reverence
toward Tradition actually have the same or a differing concept in
view. While dogmatic statements from official Roman Catholic councils
are put forth to clarify truth, their statements on Tradition have
done quite the opposite. II.
Current
Popular Explanations of Tradition
The
ambiguities of these official statements on Tradition have not been a
hindrance to Catholic apologetical works. Rather, this lack of
clarity allows Rome's popular writers to use the concept to their
advantage depending on the situation or context. For instance, one of
the most popular and groundbreaking recent Catholic works is Karl
Keating's Catholicism and
Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians.
Keating's goal was to counter fundamentalist attacks against
Catholicism. In analyzing the charge that Roman Catholics logically
believe in continuing revelation because some of her dogmas find no
evidence in the Bible, Keating explains this false argument is based
on a misunderstanding of Tradition. Keating states: "It
is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in
the New Testament. They believe, though, that it ended with the death
of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to
writing- the part that is outside the New Testament and is the oral
teaching that is the basis of Tradition- that part of revelation
Catholics also accept ..."(8)
Here, the partim-partim view of Tradition allows Roman Catholics a
basis for their distinctive views. One need not seek proof for every
Christian belief in the Bible, for Tradition is the second part that
completes the whole of God's revealed truth. Keating goes on to state
this follows Paul's injunction to stand firm, then, brethren, and
hold by the traditions you have learned, in word or in writing, from
us (2 Thes. 2:14).
Contrary to Keating, another leading
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, affirms "It
may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what
we call, the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means that
Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All
doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they're
all there."(9)
Madrid stated this during a debate against sola scriptura in an
attempt to limit the scope of his opponents argumentation. In his
writings, Madrid explains Tradition: the
norm St. Paul wants Timothy to go by is not Scripture alone, but also
the oral teaching he delivered to Timothy personally and through
others. This oral teaching, the faithful and accurate handing down of
the gospel of Christ in the Church, which includes the correct
interpretation of the Scriptures is Sacred Tradition.(10)
For Madrid, Tradition functions as the act of handing down the gospel
and also as the interpreter of biblical revelation, rather than
revelation proper. That interpretation is the property of the papal
magisterium. The papacy is able to infallibly determine that the
gospel was accurately handed down, and also what the apostles meant.
The papacy can determine extra-biblical clarifications of the gospel
passed down through history.(11)
Catholic apologist Mark Shea
approaches Tradition similar to Keating by noting the Bible refers to
positive extra-biblical revelation handed down.(12) Similarly to
Madrid, he affirms a form of material sufficiency, "all the
bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture."(13)
"Build doctrine" is a key element in his understanding of
Tradition. It is not only the correct interpretation of the Bible
given by the apostles (As Madrid holds), but is rather also the
correct interpretation of revelation that grows and develops through
history: "Tradition grows like a mustard seed and, as a result,
gets more mustardy, not less."(14) A Protestant that would
charge a Catholic as holding to an extra-biblical tradition not
traceable through history is answered that Tradition is "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."(15) For Shea, a current dogma has grown to its
particular state, and Tradition functions as a tool to determine
which acorn became what oak tree.
Here lies one the major
weaknesses in Rome's appeal to Tradition. With each of these Catholic
apologists, Tradition finds a different, and if not in some aspects
contradictory meaning. Roman apologists may claim to provide converts
with a Tradition that connects one to a two thousand year old church,
but they cannot tell you exactly what they are giving you, making one
question if they are giving anything at all. They cannot tell you
with any infallible clarity exactly what is meant by Tradition, or
exactly what Rome's definitive statements mean. They can only provide
you with their particular private interpretation of Tradition,
typically doing so while chiding Protestants for relying on private
interpretation. All would claim harmony with Trent and subsequent
infallible statements, yet would be unable to prove that harmony as
Romes official position.
Biblical
Argumentation Supporting Tradition Used By Catholic
Apologists
Luther
chided the early Catholic apologists for their lack of Scripture in
response to him. Now, such books as The
Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching,
The
New Catholic Answer Bible,
and Where
Is That in the Bible
are typical of the materials geared toward converting Protestants to
the Roman Catholic Church. Rome's apologists have learned the best
way to convert Protestants is to use not only their language, but
also their paradigm of proving doctrine by the Bible. They are
steadily producing works training Catholics to answer Protestant
biblical argumentation with counter biblical argumentation. Tradition
is one such topic that is no longer defended by simply appeals to
dogmatic pronouncement. Rather, popular Catholic apologists have
attempted to ground their concept of Tradition in the Biblical text.
Catholic apologist Mark Shea argues vigorously "Scripture says a
great deal about Sacred Tradition- all of it agreeing perfectly with
the picture of the Catholic Church drawn by the Second Vatican
Council." (16)
Even though sola scriptura does not deny
that there was a period of inscripturation in which the word of God
was oral, Roman apologists typically use 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15,
John 20:30, and John 21:25 in defense of the Catholic understanding
of Tradition. These verses are offered as proof of an oral tradition
functioning during the New Testament period, and therefore prove the
existence of Rome's concept of Tradition. Catholic apologists never
explain why the notion of a period in which the gospel was oral
necessarily means God intended extra-biblical revelation to be passed
on via Tradition. They simply conclude that if at some time God's
word was oral, God intended more than what was inscripturated.
The
New Catholic Answer Bible states "Paul commands Christians to
hold fast to the traditions he has passed on to them, both those that
were written down (and were later recognized as Scripture) and those
that were not written down (see 2 Thes. 2:15)."(17) Chantel Epie
states, "In [the Gospel of John] we read, There is much else
besides that Jesus did; if all of it were put in writing, I do not
think the world itself would contain the books which would have to be
written... So it appears clearly that there was a considerable part
of the Lord's teachings, later taught in turn by the Apostles, that
was not written down and cannot therefore be found in the Bible.
These teachings, however, were faithfully transmitted to the
Christian communities."(18)
The Catholic assumption in 2
Thessalonians 2:15 is that the unwritten traditions referred to are
different than those which were written. Such cannot be proven from
this verse. The Catholic must be pressed to prove that both
categories contain different information. 2 Thessalonians 2:14 speaks
of the gospel, not doctrines like papal infallibility, indulgences,
or the assumption of Mary. If these Traditions indeed exist, the act
of producing them should be an easy task. However, Rome's apologists
can only point to highly debatable vague inferences from Scripture on
such doctrines, further impaired by any lack of infallible biblical
definition from the papacy. Note what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians
2:5, after writing on the man of lawlessness, Do you not remember
that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? The
content being told matched that being written.(19)
Those Roman
Catholics using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 whose views imply partim-partim
must be pressed to produce what they claim to have. If they claim the
use of church history as that which provides proof for their
particular extra-biblical dogmas, let these peculiar dogmas be traced
through two thousand years of history. Such dogmas like the
assumption of Mary and papal infallibility find their journey back
through the pages of history meet dead ends long before they arrive
in the first century.
Are John 20:30 and 21:25 solid
scriptural proofs for authoritative non-biblical oral tradition?
Catholic apologetic works never provide evidence of any other things
Jesus did later handed down via infallible Tradition. They cannot
produce extra-biblical information on any miracle Jesus performed or
teaching imparted. John asserts, if they were written in detail, I
suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that
would be written. Exactly how much of this content and depth of
detail of this content does the Roman Catholic Church have? If
Scripture + Tradition = a complete rule of faith, one must press the
Catholic use of these verses to provide that complete rule of faith.
It appears the Catholic position must borrow capital from the
Protestant position. Protestants hold a sufficient authority does not
need to be exhaustive in every detail. By implication, the Catholic
must also adhere to this, unless they can provide the complete
content mentioned in John 21:25.
John says earlier, Therefore
many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the
disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been
written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John
20:30-31). That of which John wrote was for a purpose: that one may
believe Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. He doesn't say the rest
was left as infallible Tradition so that one may believe Jesus is the
Christ and Son of God.
An
Example of Historical Argumentation Supporting Tradition Used By
Catholic Apologists
In
the popular Catholic work Not
By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of
Sola Scriptura,
appeals are made to the church fathers as proof for Tradition as
another equally authoritative source of divine revelation. For
instance, Patrick Madrid cites Basil of Caesarea stating, "Of
the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined
which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from
written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the
apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in
relation to true religion have the same force "(On the Holy
Spirit, 27).(20) Madrid states, "Basil's appeal to an
authoritative body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within the Church
is frequent in his writings."(21) Was Basil referring to an
unwritten apostolic Tradition that held contents like the Marys
assumption or papal infallibility, passed down from the apostles? Was
Basil the recipient of unwritten God-inspired Traditions, passed down
from the apostles, able to infallibly decide between disputing
parties? Was Basil simply referring to Tradition as interpretation of
revelation, or the development of Tradition?
Many of the
Church fathers cited by Catholic apologists did embrace a form of
tradition that was independent of Scripture (like Papias, Tertullian,
Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Augustine and Basil the Great). What
Basil and these others meant in no way supports Madrid's position.
Basil, in using the term tradition is describing mysteries of the
Christian faith that were allegedly communicated in an unwritten
form. These refer to liturgical rites of practices like baptism or
the Eucharist. Basil was not teaching two sources of infallible
revelation, with Tradition functioning similarly to scripture, but
rather referred to a tradition of ecclesiastical practices or
customs. Most often, doctrine was not in view. After discussing Basil
and other Early Church Fathers, the great patristic scholar J.N.D.
Kelly noted, "Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition
lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will
be found, on examination to refer to matters of observance and
practice (e.g. triple immersion in baptism; turning East for prayer)
rather than of doctrine as such, although sometimes they are matters
(e.g. infant baptism; prayers for the dead) in which doctrine is
involved."(22)
Madrid shuffled Basil around just enough
so that one is left unsure of what exactly Basil held to. Madrid did
not define what contents make up Tradition for either himself or
Basil, or even if they together believe the same content of
Tradition. Basil though did define the contents of the Tradition he
was speaking of. William Webster points out, "Basil's teaching
primarily had to do with customs and practices such as triple
immersion in baptism and turning to the East in prayer, practices of
secondary importance."(23)
Conclusion
Whereas
once the conversion story was the unspoken property of
Evangelicalism, Roman Catholics now are highly successful in using
them in there own evangelism efforts. They serve as a vehicle in
which to persuade others to accept Rome's paradigms of authority. In
the popular book Surprised
by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for
Becoming Catholic,
Al Kresta stated of his conversion to Catholicism, "In reviewing
the beliefs of the primitive Church, I noticed that the Church
Fathers didnt hesitate to invoke biblical authority, but they never
tried to prove their case by the Bible alone. They also appealed to
an authoritative Church tradition handed down through a succession of
bishops that could be traced all the way back to the apostles
themselves."(24) He then goes on to note such Biblical doctrines
as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are not self-evident in
Scripture, but are rather "the result of centuries of deep
reflection on the Scripture and the oral tradition of interpreting
Scripture that had been handed on to the Church by the apostles."(25)
This sentiment is typical of many Roman Catholic conversion stories.
The appeal of being plugged into a two thousand year old visible,
ecclesiastical body holds quite a sway for many Protestants whose
particular Protestant church may be at best, five hundred years old,
or at worst less than a decade old.
But have these converts
really engaged what either Rome or her apologists mean by Tradition?
As was demonstrated, Rome's statements on Tradition are vague and
open to multiple interpretations. In two thousand years, none of
Rome's popes, clergy, or apologists has infallibly and exhaustively
defined or produced the doctrinal content of oral tradition.
Roman
Tradition claims need to be pressed for definition and clarity. By
doing so, Rome's claims to a secondary binding authority are exposed
as a counterfeit. If they were legitimate, one would find Rome's view
of Tradition consistent with the Bible. Rome's apologists are correct
that there is indeed a binding authority of apostolic tradition given
by the apostles. This tradition was inscripturated and serves as the
sole authority for a believer. Rather than the Scriptures serving as
a foundation for extra-biblical revelation from God, the scriptures
stand as a verifiable body of truth. One need not guess what
constitutes God's word. The scriptures exist as the only record of
God's voice. If Rome claims another record of God's voice exists,
they bear the burden of proof. If Rome's Tradition is theopneustos,
they need to demonstrate this is the case. So far, they have not.
In regard to history, if Rome's claims were true, the concept
of Tradition would find unifying themes and content throughout
history. Recent Catholic apologists may refer to Tradition as a body
of truths not found in Scripture, but these same apologists struggle
to trace these through history back to the apostles. Add in the fact
that there are Traditions alluded to by the Church Fathers that claim
to come from the apostles, yet today's Roman Catholic would deny
their veracity. One such example would be that, according to
Irenaeus, Jesus was more than fifty years old when He died. Irenaeus
claimed this information came from those who knew the apostles.
Others refer to Tradition as interpretation, yet until a
dogma is infallibly defined, Roman Catholics are granted freedom to
privately interpret. The history of Roman Catholic theology is
replete with multiple private interpretations on virtually every
aspect of theology. Even after an infallible definition, Roman
Catholics are granted freedom to interpret infallible pronouncements,
as long as they do not contradict that infallible pronouncement.
Therefore, in terms of certainty, Tradition does not provide what her
apologists claim- they are not reproducing a body of truth from the
apostles, but rather are invoking anachronism by claiming her recent
developments were held by the apostles, when in fact they are the
result of the movement of private interpretation within the
church.
Protestants can counter Roman Catholic argumentation
effectively by beginning with a dismantling of Tradition. While
Protestants may be losing the publishing war in the market place,
they need not lose the argument. Even though Catholics are now using
the Bible and are doing so effectively by combining it with the
conversion story, Protestants can still point to and provide an
extant body of revealed sacred truth, the Holy Scriptures, which are
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17). There is no divine
statement recorded that Tradition will thoroughly equip the man of
God. Rather than seeing Rome's triumph in the market place as
Protestant failure, Protestants need to cling even more steadfastly
to that which thoroughly equips, and view Rome's success as an
opportunity to share the contents of the sole rule of faith and
expose the counterfeit.
Endnotes
1.
David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's
Early Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518-1525 (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991), 218-219. Catholic apologists were often
provoked to bitterness from lack of papal support. Cochlaeus, one of
Rome's most zealous defenders complained to a high Roman Catholic
official, "If I am ignored by you any longer, I shall wash my
hands of the Catholic cause and denounce all bishops and prelates
before God and before men" (Bagchi, 219). Cochlaeus, devoted to
defending the Roman Church despite no help from her, went on to
publish vigorously against the reformers, maintaining his own
printing press. Johann Eck, perhaps the leading sixteenth century
Catholic apologist, complained throughout his career over a lack of
sufficient or sustained material help from Rome (Bagchi, 218).
2.
Throughout this blog article, I will be referring to popular Catholic
apologetics, as opposed to scholarly Roman Catholic theology. I have
found that Catholic works currently with the most impact in the
United States are those produced by layman apologists. Such popular
writers would include Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Steve
Ray, Tim Staples, and Robert Sungenis, to name only a few.
Organizations like Catholic Answers (with a yearly budget over a
million dollars) have promoted and popularized layman apologists,
many of whom are ex-Protestants.
3. Patrick Madrid, ed.,
Surprised
by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for
Becoming Catholic (San
Diego: Basilica Press, 1994).
4. As proof, visit any large
chain bookstore like Borders or Barnes and Noble. In the religious
section of books, many Catholic works are typically apologetic in
nature, while Protestant works typically have little to do with a
Reformation distinctive, or an apologetic against Rome.
5.
Throughout this blog article I will use Tradition
with a capital "T" as Romes apologists do. Catholic
apologists generally use Tradition to refer to either a sacred body
of truth, sacred interpretation, or an historical development of
sacred truth, as distinguished from tradition with a small "t"
which refers to non-essential customs throughout church history.
Catholic apologist Mark Shea explains this distinctionin his article,
What
is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition?
found in Robert Sungenis, ed., Not
By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of
Sola Scriptura
(Santa Barbara: QueenshipPublishing, 1997), 170-173.
6.
Philip Schaff, ed., The
Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 2
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 80.
7. David T. King, Holy
Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume I
(Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), 64.
8. Karl
Keating, Catholicism
and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians
(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988) 151.
9. James White,
Does
the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?
Available from:
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html..
10. Patrick
Madrid, Answer
Me This!
(Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003) 42.
11. For instance,
the Roman Catholic Church can determine that when the Lord said "This
is my body" he meant that the bread was to be the
transubstantiated essence of his body, rather than the words being
figurative.
12. Robert Sungenis, ed., Not
By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of
Sola Scriptura
(Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997), 176-181. Mark Shea notes
Jannes and Jambres, the dispute with Satan over the body of Moses,
and the seat of Moses as examples of Tradition operating within the
Bible.
13. Ibid., 181.
14. Ibid., 209.
15.
Ibid., 198.
16. Ibid., 208.
17. Paul Thigpen, ed., The
New Catholic Answer Bible
(Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005), N2.
18. Chantal
Epie, The
Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching
(Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 2002), 6-7.
19. Catholic
apologist Robert Sungenis sees 2 Thes. 2:5 as proof for unwritten
oral tradition because no reference to the man of lawlessness can be
found in 1 Thessalonians. However, Sungenis never produces the
extra-biblical content allegedly taught by Paul and passed on via
Tradition. See Sungenis, 259.
20. Sungenis, 7.
21.
Ibid., p.8.
22. J.N.D. Kelly, Early
Christian Doctrines
(New York: Harper San Francisco, 1960), 47.
23. William
Webster, Holy
Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. II
(BattleGround: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), 144.
24.
Madrid, Surprised
by Truth,
261.
25. Ibid., 261-262.