Authority: Who has the right to define the Gospel

Roman Catholicism and the Bible: Who has the right to define the Gospel?

By : Moses Flores

I frequently like to debate and discuss theological issues. As part of my experience, there is nothing that is more frustrating than when someone misinterprets and twists what it is that I have actually said to try to say that I meant something else. I perceive that as unwillingness on the part of my opponent to actually listen to what I am saying or trying to create a straw man in order to attempt to strengthen their case. The frustration is created because somebody else is trying to define what it is that I am actually saying rather than allowing my own words to speak for themselves.

Throughout Church history, the same can be said about God’s word and its teachings. God’s word is revelation to us, and as such is clear and able to be understood in its most elementary teachings. Yet heresy is no stranger to the Church. And heresy is usually not in the form of outright denial of any teachings of the Bible, but rather a twisting and misinterpretation of the Scriptures. The Gospel is no different in this area. It too has been challenged and distorted. In the Bible, this can be seen in one instance when the legalistic Judaizers came into the churches in Galatia and began teaching a form of faith and works salvation in order to be justified before God. Peter even warned about those who twist the scriptures to their own destruction in 2 Peter 3:16.

The question that we are seeking to answer is who, or what, has the right to define the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Should the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) be the sole sufficient and infallible rule of faith and practice especially when it comes to defining what exactly the Gospel is? Or do we need more than the Bible to help us understand and interpret what the Gospel is? The Former is the Protestant position and the latter being that of the Roman Catholic Church. We will examine the claims of both sides in the light of the Scriptures in this study with the prayer that God will grant us of His Holy Spirit to know with absolute certainty who has the right to define what the Gospel of God is.

The Roman Catholic position on the Bible

To begin with, it is important to note the common beliefs that Roman Catholics and traditional Protestants stand on. From here it will be easier to assert the differences in the respective theologies.

First, in [65] of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [1] (from here CCC), Rome says that Christ is “the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.” Their justification for this is from Hebrews 1:1-2 which says, “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things…” This portion of the CCC protects the entrance of other revelations, such as the Book of Mormon, which is claimed to be “another testament (revelation) of Jesus Christ.” It also emphasizes the sufficiency of the manner in which God has spoken through the Word and no longer speaks through “various ways” such as dreams and visions. The CCC quotes St. John of the Cross who said that “any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with desire for some other novelty” [65].

This leads to another area of agreement found in [66] of the CCC which says that there will be no further revelation: “no new public revelation.” By this it is meant that God is through speaking anything new to His Church. Historic Protestants believe this and defend it also from Hebrews 1:1-2. Normally, this protects against what we would most commonly recognize as the contemporary speech of “thus saith the Lord” in order to try to give a “prophecy”. Also Revelation 22:18-19 gives a severe warning to anybody who is claiming to add, by way of new revelation, to the prophecy which is written. Protestants and Catholics believe that God has spoken and revealed all that He intended to reveal. It is, therefore, not the case that God is still revealing Himself or His will to the Church but has done some completely, already, through Christ, the Word made flesh.

Another area of agreement has to deal with the inspiration and the infallibility of the scriptures. The CCC says:

[105] God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

[106] God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was true as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

[107] The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Historical Protestants and Roman Catholics stand on the same ground in regards to the issues of the inspiration of the Scriptures and their inerrancy. These issues have never been a dividing line. In fact, Rome is even to be commended for their commitment to these doctrines over and against some, so called, Protestants who, in recent times, have abandoned these concepts.

Despite, these similarities in belief, We begin to break off and away from Rome when it comes to other issues like what exactly are the scriptures (canon), who defines the canon, the sufficiency of the scriptures in regards to their authority.

The visible authority of the Roman Catholic Church (from here the R.C.C.) resides in the Magisterium, which consists of the Pope, Bishops and on down to the priests in hierarchical order. Undergirding the teaching authorities of the R.C.C., as Rome claims, are the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition (see fig. 1).

Figure1

According to the R.C.C, the Divine Revelation of God is contained and summed up in both the Scriptures and apostolic traditions, which together are “the word of God” [76]. Obviously there is no question that the Bible is God’s revelation to us. But Rome adds “Tradition” to the revelation of God. What exactly does the Roman Catholic Church mean by “Tradition”?

Catholic Theologians are quick to assert that these Traditions are not “legends” or “myths”, nor particular styles of dress or anything of that nature. Instead, “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.[2]” That is, Rome claims them to be what was taught by the apostles but was not recorded in the Bible. They could be from the sermons that Paul preached in local synagogues, or throughout the cities. Although Sacred Tradition is said to be revelation from God like the Scriptures are, it is still “distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it” [78].

The Word of God was handed down in two ways says Rome: (1) “orally – by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit” and (2) also in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing” [76].

As the traditions were formulated, the apostles elected Bishops to be their successors and “living transmissions” of these oral traditions [78]. The CCC sums this by saying:

[80] Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own always, to the close of the age.

[81] Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

And [Holy] 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.

[82] As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

A few things deserve some attention from these passages. First, Roman Catholic theologians see Divine Revelation as a giant pool that has two streams which portray the two modes of transmission to the Church. One represents Scripture and the other represents Tradition. The pool to which Scripture and Tradition flow to is called the Depositum Fidei, or the “Sacred Pool” [84]. The Second Vatican Council said that, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God which is entrusted to the Church[3]” (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2

Second, as should be clear already, the Bible alone is not the Word of God. Instead, according to the R.C.C., there are certain teachings that were not recorded in the Scriptures or as clearly taught but, instead, were passed on through the apostles (e.g. 2 Thess. 2:15) and the successors of the apostles. Therefore, if one is to understand the scriptures, they must be read “within the living Tradition of the whole Church “[113]. Rome often says that if one were to read the Scriptures alone, the result would be confusion about what to believe from them. Also, if one were to try to understand Tradition apart from the Scriptures, the same result would occur. But both Scripture and Tradition read in light of each other results in true knowledge of what to believe for salvation.

In fact, lest the reader think that I am somehow misrepresenting Roman Catholic Theology, I offer two quotes from Roman Catholic priest and scholar. John O’Brien, said, “Great as is our reverence for the Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what are to believe.[4]” Also, Catholic theologian Karl Keating, in reference to the Holy Spirit and his role as found in the scriptures, mentions that “the status of the Holy Spirit is by no means clear (italics mine)[5]”, thus, showing that the revelation of God in the Bible alone is unclear to the readers.

Third, this tradition is only in the possession of the Magisterium of the Church who alone can give “an authentic interpretation of the Word of God” (whether written or unwritten) as [81] of the CCC mentions. Several Roman Catholic documents elaborate and concur with this teaching.

“Likewise I (Pius) accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church held and holds , since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.[6]”

“But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ…It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.[7]”

also,

“[Sacred Tradition] has been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which means to its official teachers, the bishops in union with the pope).[8]”

Because Sacred Tradition and the true interpretation of the Scriptures belong exclusively to the Magisterium, Rome firmly condemns any and all “private interpretation” which is not in accord with its own teachings. Vatican I stated,

“Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine Magisterium of the church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.[9]”

The Council of Trent supports this by saying

“Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.[10]”

Interestingly enough, the Second Vatican Council laid out some principles that should be followed when seeking a true interpretation of scripture such as searching out the intention of the authors, literary forms, historical concerns and other criteria[11]. This would seem to allow some sort of freedom and guidelines for a “private interpretation” but, in a contradictory manner, they close that section on the interpretation of scripture by saying that “for all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God[12] (Italics mine).”

Finally, the summation of all that has been said, as Karl Keating puts it, is that

“the true ‘rule of faith’ – as expressed in the Bible itself – is Scripture plus tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret scripture correctly…therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.(Italics mine)[13]”

Note the final clause, that Scripture and Tradition are to regarded with the same devotion and reverence.

The Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church

At this point, I want to critically focus on the Tradition of the R.C.C. Roman Catholic apologists often quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as proof that there existed both written and unwritten traditions in the early church. The text reads:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and HOLD TO THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU WERE TAUGHT, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or BY LETTER FROM US.”

If one were to read over this quite simply and merely focus on the fact that the word “tradition” is mentioned as well as the words “by word of mouth” (which Rome claims to say are the oral traditions of which Rome teaches) and “by letter” (which would obviously be the New Testament letters), it would appear that the case for Rome is correct on their assertions of unwritten traditions. But the question we must ask of this text is: Did the apostles have in mind the same teachings and traditions that Rome asserts? However, we will return to that question as the study progresses. For now, it should suffice to say that Rome claims Biblical support for the existence of their Sacred Tradition.

The case for the necessity and existence of Sacred Tradition “involves the oft-repeated claim that the Scriptures are liable to many interpretations and therefore we need a clear, defining voice to cut through the confusion and make the truth manifest.[14]” That is, Rome says that because the Bible is often used to justify many different claims and various interpretations, there is a need for one exclusive interpreter of scripture. This “thing” that gives interpretation to the Scriptures is the “traditions” or the oral teachings passed down to the Church through the apostles. These Traditions of the R.C.C., then, are what give interpretation and meaning to the scriptures. The origin of these traditions, according to Rome, comes from the apostles and “develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit[15]”. Many of these traditions are recorded by the early Church fathers, whom Rome quotes extensively in support of much of their doctrines, such as Origen, St. Augustine, Irenaeus and others. As mentioned before, these traditions belong exclusively to the teaching offices of the Church known as the Magisterium, of which the Pope – the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ on Earth – is the head and the Bishops and priests are sub-serviant to the Pope.

This is a crucial point because Rome is claiming the exclusive rights to both the true interpretation of the Scriptures and the exclusive right to define and interpret what the Traditions are that interpret scripture. The reasoning, of course, is begging the question (circular) because it is assuming the ultimate authority of the Magisterium in the first place without proving that authority, which is, itself, in question as a tradition[16].

In essence, the argument is “Tradition is whatever the Magisterium says is tradition.” Obviously, the self referential absurdity should be noted. It should also be noted that this form of argumentation can give validity to any sect. A Mormon could, and does, easily argue, “the Book of Mormon is the Word of God because Joseph Smith says it is.” Essentially, Rome could have no stronger argument than a Mormon does to justify their claim as Truth. The claims of the R.C.C. as an ultimate and infallible authority also places Rome on a pedestal that cannot be challenged or examined because no higher authority on earth is said to exists. So internally examining the traditions and claims of the R.C.C. becomes an impossible task for the Roman Catholic because he/she must always make reference to what Rome says. Either way, it is clear that the authority of the R.C.C. is the foundation upon which all their claims rest and that authority is a questionable Tradition.

What is of further interest, in regards to their traditions, is that Rome has never been able to provide a comprehensive, or exhaustive, list of all these traditions. In almost two thousand years of Church History, one would assume that all the Traditions of the Church would have been compiled and put together for all to be able to see them, yet, this has never been done. How can we know that the traditions that have developed more recently were always taught in the Church and even believed by the apostles themselves? And this is precisely what is in question! At this point, I dare not accuse Roman Catholicism of making up traditions merely to suit their theological needs as they go, but it should be clear that this is the position that Rome is in[17]. The charge could be warranted charge, however, if it can be shown that the traditions and doctrines that they claim they are merely passing along from the apostles to the Church can be shown to have not existed or been believed by the apostles.

Clearly, there is an epistemological concern. How do we know what these traditions are? How can we know that these “traditions” were successfully passed on without error or corruption? Rome only offers the answer, “Because we say so,” but this answer will certainly not suffice if one does not first accept, a priori, the ultimate authority of Rome. With the Gospel itself at stake, the question is driven to, “how do we know that the Gospel that Rome tells us is true?” Again, Rome will only say “Because we say so.” The fact that their would be no way to verify it, even with the scriptures alone according to Rome, or apart from Tradition, places it’s hearers at the mercy of those in the teachings offices of the Magisterium. Essentially, one must have an irrational faith in the R.C.C., particularly the Magisterium, before they can have any type of faith in Christ. It would appear to be the case, then, that the Gospel according to Rome is to believe in Rome and what it says about the Word of God and salvation and you will be saved.

Taking this a bit further, Rome claims that the Church is “infallible in its teachings” [CCC 890-891] which includes the definition of Scripture (the canon) and of Sacred Tradition. So what happens if the R.C.C. makes a mistake in defining either of these? How would anyone know at all that a mistake has been made? Theoretically, there is no way to confirm errors with the Roman Catholic three fold system of authority claimed by Rome.

Yet, as clear as it seems that the Magisterium is the only unchecked pillar in the R.C.C., Rome is still quick to assert that

“…this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. [86]”

Despite what Rome’s claims may be on the Magisterium’s position with the Word of God, it is not logically possible to conclude anything other than the fact that the Magisterium, beginning with the Pope, is supreme over the Word of God – both written and unwritten. After all, if the Scriptures are defined by Rome and Tradition is defined by Rome as well, then it follows that the one defining is the authority over that which is defined. This will come out more clearly with the Roman Catholic Traditions such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility – teachings for which there is no apostolic, or Biblical, support.

Does the Bible teach that there existed Traditions as Rome claims?

Despite the obvious implications that the Catholic Church is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and doctrine, Rome still appeals to the scriptures to show that Sacred Tradition existed in the time of the apostles and was being passed on. So the question we must ask is, “does the Bible teach that there existed a body of revelation that was not inscripturated, but instead, was passed on by the apostles to priests and bishops only?” We must understand that the Rome claims these to be passed on by the apostles themselves and, therefore, in existence since the beginning of the New Testament Church as well as also believed and taught by the apostles.

Rome offers several proof-texts that to show that what has come to be known as Sacred Tradition, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, did exist. It is important to examine each of these proof-texts and allow the God-breathed scriptures to speak in this matter. If the scriptures do not offer support for Rome’s position, then the claim that Rome’s teaching order rests on the Word of God will be shown to be false, and thus render Rome as a non-Biblical structure.

The first scripture which Rome uses to support their claim to Sacred Tradition existing in the early church is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” (11:2)

After exhorting the Corinthians to flee from idolatry and giving them a brief teaching in Christian freedom, Paul comes to an exclamation of praise that they have not kept Paul in mind in all things and that they have adhered to the “traditions” which Paul had previously passed on to them, more than likely at his initial stay at Corinth. What are these “traditions” that Paul is speaking of here? For starters, it should be clear that Paul makes no mention of passing on this knowledge to a group of select men, or apostolic successors, but rather, the text implies that all the “brethren” know what he is talking about. So immediately we can rule out the aspect of the claims of the R.C.C. that the Magisterium has always been the sole possessor and inheritor of such traditions.

But still, does the Bible give us any hints about what Paul had previously “delivered” to the Corinthians? Paul’s same letter to the Corinthians is helpful in answering this question.

First, Paul reminds the Corinthians that in his initial visit to Corinth, he was determined to not “know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (2:2). So we can, with good reason, infer that Paul’s subject matter was Christocentric with particular emphasis on the atonement. Paul did not intend to come to teach them anything other than this, such as hidden traditions or hidden teachings. Nowhere in Paul’s letters do we see him mentioning things like “Peter is the Pope” or “Mary remained a virgin her entire life” or any other Roman Catholic Traditions.

There are also several passages that reveal exactly what it was that Paul “delivered” to the Corinthians. For example, in 11:23 Paul says, “for I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…” of which he goes on to detail the Lord’s Supper. Also, in 15:1 Paul says, “moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand” showing that what Paul had previously “delivered” and was “received” by the Corinthians was nothing other than “the gospel” – “Christ crucified” (I Cor. 2:2). In detailing his message a bit more, further down in 15:3-8 Paul says,

“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

Notice that the content of that which was delivered to the believers in Corinth was nothing more than the Gospel announcements of Christ’s substitutionary atoning death and resurrection as was taught in the Scriptures beforehand. His testimony included eyewitnesses to the resurrection as well. This is what Paul delivered to the Church in Corinth and was received by them. Paul did not reveal to them anything about the Immaculate conception of Mary as Roman Catholicism understands it, or how Peter was the “vicar of Christ on Earth”, or even ideas of continuing a sacrificial priesthood to be successors of the apostles. Furthermore, it should be noted that Paul makes an appeal to the Old Testament scriptures of those times to justify his teachings which he received[18]. When Paul wrote in the God breathed scriptures, he gave us exactly what was “delivered” to this Church and does not leave the reader wondering if there was more that was left unsaid.

Another scripture is found in the Second letter to the Thessalonians, of which we have previously mentioned. It says,

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2:15)

Paul has just finished clearing up some eschatological issues and concerns that were created by some letters and rumors that were circulating through this Church in Thessalonica. “Now it is alleged by Roman Catholic apologist that here you have a positive command to pass on the oral tradition as a separate tradition, separate from the written, that this is to be passed on through the Church down through the ages.[19]” However, close examination of this text does not even hint at that.

First, the command is to stand firm in those teachings, traditions, where were previously “taught” (aorist in the Greek). That is, the text does not say, “hold firm in the teachings that you will continue to be taught” as if the verb form of “teach” was a future tense. The command is to hold firm to the teaching that had already been given, not what would be given or develop later as Rome asserts that Dogmas may develop in the Church[20].

Second, the recipients of these “traditions” were all of the “brethren” in Thessalonica. They were known to all Christians, not just a select few elders. This certainly disproves Rome’s interpretation of the text, which would have us to believe that the Tradition was handed only to the apostolic successors.

Finally, we see that these traditions were taught in two ways. The first was orally which was done when Paul was with the Church in Thessalonica in person while teaching and preaching to them. The second way they received these “traditions” was by “letter” which is, more than likely, the first letter to the Thessalonians. Again, we are faced with the question, what was the content of these teachings? Was Paul teaching something different to this Church than what had been taught elsewhere? Of course not! Paul was always preaching the Gospel and that is what they were to stand firm in. They were to stand firm in the faith (cf. I Cor. 16:13). After all, they could only stand firm in that which they were sure of, not what would later develop. I Thessalonians 4:1-7 also deals with previous teachings that were received by the Thessalonians though Paul’s preaching, and even sum up what those teachings were so that we don’t have to assume them (v. 3-7). These “traditions” are the same as those mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 where Paul commands the brethren to “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” which is the Gospel. Roman Catholic scholar, Mitch Pacwa, even admits that some New Testament usages of the word “tradition” refer merely to the basic teachings of the Gospel[21].

The simple point of this passage is that Paul is “binding the consciences of the Thessalonians to the content of his instruction regardless of the mode by which it was delivered. There is no reason to believe that this text warrants any essential difference between what Paul taught orally or by epistle.[22]”

Clearly, the Bible does not teach, nor give hint of some sort of extra body of revelation known as Sacred Tradition as Roman Catholicism says it does. Therefore, we must conclude that the authority of Sacred Tradition does not find support from the Bible, and I don’t believe it would be going too far to say, neither from God Himself. In fact, God’s word often says some very negative things about tradition.

What the Bible says about Traditions whose origins are not from God

In Matthew 15:1-9 (cf. Mark 7:5-13) Jesus deals with the Pharisees and issues concerning the transgression of some traditions. The passage reads:

“Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandments of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and ‘He who curses his father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God – then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

In this passage, the Scribes and Pharisees find Jesus’ disciples eating a meal with “defiled”, that is, unwashed hands, and they decide to questions Jesus about their transgression of the “tradition of the elders.” These traditions were “regulations imposed by former rabbis and handed down to the present generation regarding ritual cleansings.[23]” These traditions had developed as a reaction to the Israelites’ devastating captivity to Babylon for their departure from God and His holy law. They, therefore, began to require and create certain rituals and practices to try to ensure that they would not depart from God’s law in the same manner and be, once again led into captivity as a form of judgment upon them. In essence, they created rules to prevent breaking God’s rules and these rules went “far beyond anything demanded by God’s law.[24]” These traditions were, for the most part, regarded as equally authorative as the Jewish Scriptures and even as the words of Moses, himself. Part of those teachings was a ceremonial cleansing that was performed before eating.

However, Jesus is quick to reject their requirements of ritual cleansing as a mode of worship. “The fault,” according to Calvin, “lay in this, that they did not think that God could be approached in any other way.[25]” They had added so many “pre-laws” to the actual law of God that it caused men to actually to break what they were trying to keep. The main objection is that these traditions were considered of equal weight and binding power to the conscience as the Law of God itself. They had added to the written revelation of God’s law. As a result, Jesus objects to men being bound to any other authority that is not God’s. That is the thrust of what Jesus means when he says to the Scribes and Pharisees, “why do you also transgress the commandments of God because of your tradition?”

It’s interesting how Jesus parallels His question with that of the Scribes and Pharisees: “why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders” vs. “Why do you transgress the commandment of God”. Jesus’ response resembles that of an ad hominem tu quoque. It’s like he was saying, “you should be one to accuse of transgressing a law! You yourselves break the very commandments of God and you have the audacity and the nerve to worry about my disciples breaking the commandments of men?” It is clear that Jesus is rejecting the authority of the tradition of the elders by engaging in a criticism of its practices.

One such teaching which Jesus uses as an example is the “corban rule” (cf. Mark 7:11). The corban rule taught that “a man could dedicate his belongings to the Temple and not support his parents in their old age.[26]” Jesus finds this tradition in direct violation of the fifth commandment which says to “honor your father and mother”, the penalty, of which, is death (v 4, cf. Exodus 21:17). Jesus, therefore, rejects their tradition of the elders and finds it lacking in the light of scripture. Furthermore, he tells them that they have “made the commandment of God of no effect” by their traditions.

It is the case that these additions to the Word of God had so obscured the true worship of God and what it is that God really required. Instead, they placed upon men more burdens and requirements than God had originally given. They were determining how God was to be approached and worshipped as God according to their own devising, even though they did so with religious intentions. But God had not ordained such means and that is crucial to see. Also, it is important to recognize that the Jews viewed this “corban rule”, as well as the rest of the “tradition of the elders”, as divine revelation and of equal authority as the Hebrew Scriptures.

The parallel to Rome’s view of tradition and their addition of requirements for salvation are many. It is even the case that Rome ignores and “nullifies” the plain teachings of Scripture in order to uphold their traditions such as Papal Infallibility and the Marian doctrines. Jesus was quick to judge this supposed “divine tradition” in the light of the ultimate authority of God’s Word found in the Scriptures written by Moses. We too must be willing to subject any and all teachings and traditions to the Word of God. Sometimes, however, an objection is raised that this is referring to “human traditions” and not “divine traditions.” However, it is clear that any tradition, no matter what it’s claimed origin is, must be tested by the standard of Holy Scripture.

Jesus’ final condemnation on these Scribes and Pharisees is that of the prophet Isaiah who condemned men as hypocrites for approaching God in form only and not with their hearts. And they could not approach and worship God because they would not approach God on his own gracious terms, but instead sought other devices of which to have a form of godliness.

Clearly, Jesus did not have a favorable view of traditions invented by men. John Calvin, a Protestant Reformer himself, summed up the basic teachings of this text in his commentary. He said:

“This passage teaches us, first, that all modes of worship invented by men are displeasing to god, because He chooses that he alone shall be heard, in order to train and instruct us in true godliness according to his own pleasure; secondly, that those who are not satisfied with the only law of God, and weary themselves by attending to the traditions of men are uselessly employed; thirdly, that an outrage is committed against God, when the inventions of men are so highly extolled, that the majesty of His law is almost lowered, or at least the reverence for it is abated[27].”

These are certainly strong words from John Calvin who witnessed and was a part of the Reformation and knew first hand what the teachings of Rome had done to the true worship of God and, surely, it was scriptures like this that lead him to believe that Rome was wrong to assert their traditions as divine and authorative.

Summary

The point of all that has been said above, so far, shows that the R.C.C. believes the Bible alone to be INSUFFICIENT for knowledge of the Gospel[28]. Instead, it must be supplemented with the oral traditions that have been handed down through Church history and these traditions belong only to the Magisterium, who alone can define and infallibly interpret Sacred Scripture. For Rome, the Bible is not clear when it says “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved” but one must also believe that the Eucharist actually becomes the body and blood of Christ, or in the Marian doctrines, and in the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and the infallibility of the Pope and other such traditions. God’s authorative word in the scriptures, is not clear enough, to present all that one must believe in order to be saved. As Roman Catholic, John O’Brien, says, “Great as is our reverence for the Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent, nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe.[29]” Yet we have also seen that the Bible does not endorse, nor give hint, of any claim to divine revelation existing in the Sacred Tradition that Rome claims. Moreover, we have seen Jesus’, and the Bible’s, stern condemnation of both the traditions of men and those who assert them.

[1] All quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church are from the second

[2] Keating, Karl, Scripture and Tradition, http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and _Tradition. asp , Sept. 9 2003

[3] 2^nd Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, Chapter II, section 10

[4] White, James R. , The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics and Protestants – Do the difference still matter?, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1996, pg. 92

[5] ibid.

[6] Vatican I, Session 2, section 6

[7] 2^nd Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, Chapter II, section 10

[8] Keating, Scripture and Tradition

[9] Vatican I, Session 3, section 5

[10] The Council of Trent, Session 4, “Decree concerning the edition and use of the sacred books”

[11] 2^nd Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, Chapter 3, section 12

[12] ibid. Quite frankly, it would appear that the means of interpretation are not really what matters. What matters is if the “interpretation” of a text aligns with, or contradicts, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine for a moment, though, if one were to follow the hermeneutical principles that Rome lays out. I have no doubt those who interpret according to them would quickly find themselves departing from such Dogmas as the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary’s role as mediator, Papal infallibility and many other Roman Catholic Traditions.

[13] Keating, Scripture and Tradition

[14] White, James R. , The Roman Catholic Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1996pg. 71

[15] 2^nd Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” , no. 8

[16] The argument structure is as follows: x is the proper interpretation of the Scriptures according to the Traditions; The Tradition is the what it is because Rome says so, Therefore, because Rome says something is so, it must be so.

[17] It is interesting, that some of the Traditions of the R.C.C. , such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary in to Heaven, came about after much petitioning – about 700,000 Catholics - to Pope Pius XII. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Bodily Assumption of Mary to be an official Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

[18] It would not be going to far, I believe, to infer that Paul had “received” these teachings from the study of the Scriptures themselves according to the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

[19] White, James R., from a debate vs. Gerry Matatics, Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?, ~http://.www.aomin.org/Mata25.html, April 13, 2003.

[20] See the article Can Dogmas develop in the Church? http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

[21] “Some passages in the New Testament use ‘tradition’ to refer to the basic teachings of the Gospel (e.g. I Cor. 11:2; 15:3; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6).” From Not by Scripture Alone edited by Robert Sungenis (Queenship, Santa Barbara, California, 1997, pg. 565).

[22] King, David T., Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith; Volume I: A Biblical defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, Christian Resources, Inc., Battle Ground, Washington, 2001, pg. 58

[23] Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary: Matthew, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pg. 608

[24] ibid.

[25] Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Volume XVI, Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 2, trans. William Pringle, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979, pg. 248

[26] The Roman Catholic Controversy, pg. 68

[27] Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XVI, pg.248

[28] Obviously this flies in the face of God since it implies that God cannot communicate clearly and sufficiently through written revelation, or that He cannot say what He means.

[29] From Finding Christ’s Church, by John O’Brien quoted by James White in Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?, ~http://.www.aomin.org/Mata25.html, April 13, 2003.