CHRISTIAN TRADITION

by

Rosie Perera051657

THEO 605: Systematic Theology A

J.I. Packer

Regent College

May 1, 1998

Tradition Opposing Scripture?

Ever since the Reformation, differences between Catholics and Protestants have centered

around the debate over Scripture versus Tradition. Much of the strife has come about because both

parties thought for centuries that Catholic teaching posited Tradition as a secondary source of

revelation, in some sense superior to Scripture, or at least so sufficient in itself that Scripture could

even be done without. This view is now repudiated by most Catholic theologians, but it set the stage

for a division which continues to this day.

Luther said in his Treatise Against the Mass (1521), “All that is not found in Scripture is an

addition by the devil.”1 Few Protestants today would make such a harsh statement, but many of them

retain a suspicion that Catholics are like the Pharisees to whom Jesus said “you nullify the word of

God by your tradition that you have handed down.” (Mark 7:13, NIV) Protestants defend the

Reformation maxim, sola scriptura. They have tended to see tradition as an obstacle to faith, and

they insist on living by the Bible alone.

Catholics, on the other hand, accuse their “separated brethren” of not knowing history and of

arriving at wildly different individualistic interpretations of Scripture because they despise the

traditions of the Church. This accusation is not entirely unwarranted. Many Protestant evangelicals

have indeed been abysmally ignorant of church history, and there is a certain reluctance to learn from

those who have gone before in understanding Scripture. But Catholics believe that the “material

book called the Bible, which can be bought...at any bookseller’s, is only the true Bread of

Life...when it is interpreted correctly, according to the meaning implanted in it by God, and that this

is only possible in the Church, in and by her Tradition.”2

1 Congar, 45.2 Congar, 91.

1

At the same time, Protestants seem blind to their own traditions which keep them stuck in the

mud. Some exclusive groups insist that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the only

inspired Word of God. Others are resistant to changes as trivial as the arrangement of the chairs in

the adult Sunday School class. They seem to form a new gospel from “the way we’ve always done

it.” This is tradition gone sour.

Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians have been sitting on the sidelines, virtually ignored by their

Western brethren, wondering what all the fuss was about, since their notion of tradition has never

been separate from Scripture. They are probably amused to see how Catholics and Protestants are

beginning to come to a new joint understanding of tradition which is closer to the Orthodox position

than either group’s stance has been during the post-Reformation centuries.

Since it is often the case that disagreements arise because words mean different things to

different people, let us clarify what tradition is before we proceed further. The word “tradition”

comes from the Latin word tradere, to transmit. It was a term from Roman law which had to do with

handing over property to someone. The Greek verb for the act of passing on tradition, paradidomi,

evokes the image of passing the torch in a relay race.3 Tradition, or paradosis, is either the act of

delivering or passing on (by word of mouth or in writing), or the content which is delivered or passed

on. It is the word Paul used in several places to describe how the truths of the Christian faith were

handed down through the apostles. “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you.”

(1 Cor. 11:23, NIV) “ So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings4 [paradosis] we passed

on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15, NIV) Clearly then, tradition, at

least in this context, is not an antithesis to Scripture.

3 Congar, 14-15.4 KJV: “traditions”.

2

The report from the Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order makes a useful distinction

between three different meanings of “tradition”. First is Tradition (capital ‘T’), which means “the

Gospel itself, transmitted from generation to generation in and by the Church, Christ himself present

in the life of the Church.” The report uses tradition (small ‘t’) to indicate the process of

transmission. And traditions can refer either to the various “forms of expression” of the Christian

faith (liturgies and so on) or to “confessional traditions” such as the Reformed tradition.5

The popular Protestant diatribe against tradition is probably unaware of the first two usages

and focuses on the “forms of expression” – the customs and rituals which are not found in Scripture.

But the former meanings cannot be ignored. For we would not have Scripture at all were it not for

those senses of tradition.

Tradition Preceding, Producing and Paralleling Scripture

No intelligent Christian would argue that the Bible appeared one day in its final form out of

the blue as the Book of Mormon allegedly did. Protestants now generally accept, without feeling

threatened, that oral tradition preceded the writing down of at least the gospels and most of the Old

Testament. The disagreement over tradition centers rather over whether the Scriptures which were

finally assembled contain the entire sum of what Christ revealed to his disciples, or whether, as the

“two-source theory” would have it, there were some teachings that were passed down only in oral

form. The Catholic Church has been ambivalent about this over the years.

Technically, that which is written, i.e., the Scriptures, does not need to be handed down from

one to another by way of tradition. So the formal understanding of the Catholic Church, according to

Dominican patristic scholar Yves Congar, has often been that tradition is all those parts of

Christianity which have been handed down apart from the Bible. The crucial matter seems to be to

5 Rodger and Vischer, 50.

3

clarify whether the non-written tradition contains content which is different from that contained in

Scripture or whether it is just another means of passing on the same subject-matter. The Church

Fathers preferred to view tradition as “an original way of passing on the same objective material that

is found in Scripture.” After the Reformation, however, and partly as a result of the need to defend

against it, the Catholic Church began to understand tradition to include “practices and doctrines for

which Scripture provides no explicit authority.” But the Church Fathers were not unaware of the

latter definition, and the theologians of more recent times have not completely sold out to it.6

We should interject at this point that the Orthodox Church has never viewed tradition as

something parallel to Scripture at all. For them, “...tradition [is] the initial and fundamental source

of Christian theology—not in competition with Scripture, but as Scripture’s spiritual context.”7

Vladimir Lossky claims that the theologians of the Counter-Reformation made a mistake in positing

tradition as an additional source rather than the very uJpovfesi~ of Scripture.8

George Tavard points out that some of the Church Fathers changed their definition of

tradition at some point from being that which passed on the Scriptures to that which was passed on,

including the Scriptures.9 Basil the Great (fourth century) viewed tradition as the unwritten aspects

of Christianity that were passed down.10 He distinguished between the kerygmata, which were

authoritative church doctrines, passed down publicly, and the dogmata, which were unwritten

traditions passed down “by the way of mysteries”. These latter consisted of “the whole structure of

liturgical and sacramental life”.11 Unwritten traditions cited by Basil include the significance of the

6 Congar, 19.7 Meyendorff, 83.8 Lossky, 126.9 Tavard, 8.10 Congar, 20.11 Florovsky, 109.

4

Lord’s Day, the sign of the cross, facing east in prayer, standing for worship, the blessing of oil, and

triple immersion in baptism.12

We find ample evidence in the biblical witness that there were oral apostolic teachings which

were not written down (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2, 34; 15:1; 2 Thess. 2:5, 15; 2 John 12). It is quite likely that

these unwritten teachings were considered by the early Church to be equally authoritative as the

apostolic writings because they had the same source.13 But there is a distinction between apostolic

tradition and ecclesiastical tradition, which the Catholic Church does not recognize.14 The role of

apostle was a unique status accorded only to those who bore direct witness to the Incarnate and Risen

Christ. The apostles passed on their oral tradition to the bishops, but from that point on it became

ecclesiastical tradition, not apostolic tradition.15

It is at this juncture that Protestants become wary of relying on oral tradition to preserve the

instructions of Christ and the apostles. The farther we are from the original source of a teaching, the

more likely it is to become distorted, as in the children’s game of telephone. But Catholics argue that

the Holy Spirit indwells the Church and keeps the apostolic tradition intact through all generations.

“The Catholic Church is perfectly aware that she could not attribute the combination of security and

authority to Tradition as she does, treating it as a norm, if she did not know herself to be assisted by

the Holy Ghost.”16 There is a certain amount of circular reasoning in that statement. The Catholic

Church treats tradition as authoritative, which she could only do if assisted by the Holy Spirit. But it

is her tradition which tells her she is assisted by the Holy Spirit and that being assisted by the Holy

Spirit is a guarantee of authoritative and uncorrupted tradition.

12 Florovsky, 84, 110.13 Congar, 37.14 Cullmann, 11-12.15 Cullmann, 9-10.16 Congar, 57-58.

5

Indeed, tradition in the Church was becoming unreliable already by the second century. In

around 150, Papias collected word-of-mouth accounts of events surrounding the life of Christ, which

he considered to be more trustworthy than written accounts. Yet his stories have the nature of pure

legend. The Church realized that it could no longer rely on oral tradition and established the Canon

to prevent this sort of wild variation from creeping in. It was, as Oscar Cullmann puts it, an “act of

humility” by which the Church said she would submit all further tradition to the test of Scripture for

authenticity. The Church recognized that it was impossible “to guard the purity of the tradition

without a written norm recognized as superior.”17

Congar responds to Cullmann’s example of the fables of Papias by returning to the distinction

between tradition and traditions. He admits that traditions can become distorted, but insists that the

entire system, “tradition,” cannot.18 (One wonders, though, what good is infallible tradition if it

produces corrupt traditions?)

This supposedly incorruptible system of tradition encompasses the whole life of the Church,

including particularly the liturgy and sacraments. The rite of baptism is a guardian of the doctrine of

the Trinity, with the trinitarian formula that is spoken at its administration.19 The NT contains

relatively few verses describing the Eucharist, and we would have had virtually nothing about it if

Paul had not been compelled to write to the Corinthians to correct some errors. Tradition is

responsible for passing down the rest of it. Congar implies that we would still have the Eucharist,

and it would still be central in the Catholic faith, if there had been not a word mentioned about it in

the NT, simply because it was instituted by Jesus and passed down by the apostles, a fact which can

17 Cullmann, 20-21.18 Congar, 99.19 Congar, 127.

6

be known entirely through Tradition.20 Congar says that even simple symbols such as the sign of the

cross or a crucifix can convey the whole of Tradition without any dogmatic pronouncements.21

In the early Church, protection against heresy was a major concern, and tradition played a

role. Irenaeus noted that heretical groups would take verses of Scripture out of context, rearranging

the gems in the mosaic, as it were, to make a different picture that suited their own purposes.

Against this practice, Irenaeus posed the “canon of truth”. This canon or rule was “the witness and

preaching of the apostles, their kerygma...which was deposited in the church...and then was faithfully

kept and handed down.”22

Certain traditions were not written down, in order to keep them from the hands of wanton

opponents. The creed was transmitted at the time of initiation into the church, as a baptismal rite.

The catechumen would be taught the creed by memory and required to recite it before the bishop at

baptism.23

Until early in the third century, the Church Fathers understood by the term “Scriptures” the

Old Testament. Tradition for them was the correct interpretation of those Scriptures. This was only

possible within the Church, which carried on the preaching of the apostles, which involved

proclaiming how Christ was the fulfillment of the Scriptures.24

Catholics believe that oral tradition is the most important means of communication in the

Church and would be sufficient even if the Scriptures did not exist. Irenaeus attests to this, pointing

out that many pagan nations who did not possess the Scriptures have come to faith through the oral

witness of Christians who acted as the living epistle Paul writes about in 2 Cor 3:3.25 Congar likens

tradition in the Church to the bringing up of a child. A child learns morality by following the

20 Congar, 97-98.21 Congar, 72.22 Florovsky, 101-102.23 Florovsky, 110.24 Congar, 81.25 Congar, 23.

7

example of his parents more than by hearing lectures on behavior. “A child receives the life of the

community into which he enters, together with the cultural riches of the preceding generations

(tradition!), which are inculcated by the actions and habits of everyday life.”26 This is quite a

different picture from the Protestant caricature of Catholics inheriting their religion from their

parents.

Tradition has also been called the sensus fidei, the “Catholic spirit” or the “mind of the

Church,” a subjective feeling or knowing which is transmitted in the body of believers. It is the joint

belief of the ecclesiastical community.27 Johann Möhler considered the Catholic spirit to be a sort of

Volksgeist or national spirit, a “living link between the past and the present.”28

Irenaeus’s talked about tradition as a depositum juvenescens, a “living tradition”.29 Living

tradition gives continuity to the Christian life. Möhler thought of living tradition as “the growth

through time of the truth entrusted to the Church, like the growth of a living plant.”30 Paul Claudel

described tradition using the analogy of walking. We must lift one foot in the air while we keep one

planted firmly on the ground in order to go anywhere. Likewise tradition is being anchored to the

past while moving forward. Tradition is “a continuity that goes beyond conservatism...a progress

that goes beyond mere continuity.”31 This is essentially the concept of doctrinal development, one of

the key fruits of tradition for the Catholic Church.

But, as F. F. Bruce notes, “living tradition without the constant corrective of Scripture (or, in

more modern language, without the possibility of ‘reformation according to the word of God’),

might have developed out of all recognition if it had not indeed slowly faded and died.”32 According

26 Congar, 26.27 Congar, 76.28 Congar, 77.29 Florovsky, 102.30 Congar, 75.31 Congar, 8.32 Bruce, 128.

8

to the Reformers, the tradition of the Catholic Church had indeed developed by the sixteenth century

to the point of being unbiblical, and it was time to bring that corrective of Scripture into play. Hence

the call for sola scriptura.

Tradition Interpreting Scripture

The Council of Trent met in the aftermath of the Reformation and was faced with the need to

respond to the Protestant critique of Catholic tradition. The Tridentine decree in its final form

included these monumental words: “this same truth and code of morals is contained in written books

and in unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from Christ’s own mouth or at the

dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come to us, delivered to us as it were by hand.”33 Josef Geiselmann

relates the background of the decree and tells how the Council fathers, after much debate, had

changed the wording to placate a few dissenters. The preliminary draft of the decree (March 22,

1546) had said “this truth is contained partly in written books, partly in unwritten traditions.” The

final draft eliminated the partim...partim, replacing it with a simple “and”. Geiselmann concludes

that Trent did not decide in favor of the sufficiency of Scripture nor of the “partly-partly” view.

Rather, Trent intentionally left the matter of the relation between Scripture and Tradition

ambiguous.34

The drafters of the decree, however, as well as the next generation of theologians (such as

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine), interpreted the Tridentine statement as teaching that the Scriptures were

not sufficient for salvation. The catechist Peter Canisius is responsible for teaching centuries of

children that the Gospel is found partly in Scripture and partly in tradition, carrying on the unwritten

33 Session 4, c. 1, cited in Congar, 42.34 Geiselmann, 47-48.

9

partim...partim of Trent.35 Vatican I merely reconfirmed the decision of Trent, but the Second

Vatican Council made what many feel was a brave departure from the past.

A large number of Catholic theologians at the time of Vatican II still held the partly-partly

position, though certain ones were beginning to reexamine it. Yves Congar, who had an ecumenical

leaning, was one of them. He adopted the position that “it remains permissible after the Council of

Trent, as it was before, to maintain that the saving Gospel is contained entirely in the Scriptures, as it

is also contained entirely in Tradition.”36 Congar, in fact, was influential in shaping the direction of

Vatican II and as a result was rehabilitated in the eyes of the Church after having come under some

scrutiny for his dissenting opinions in the 1950s.37

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II states clearly that the gospel,

all that God revealed as necessary for salvation, was recorded in writing by the apostles. The

Dogmatic Constitution goes on to say that tradition is needed in order to “keep the gospel forever

whole and alive within the Church.”38 And it is “the province of the church in her teaching office to

interpret what has thus been revealed, recorded and transmitted.”39

This brings us to the role of the Magisterium in tradition. The Magisterium is the teaching

authority of the Catholic Church and consists of the pope and the council of bishops. It is

responsible for pronouncements on what constitutes official Church doctrine, via what are known as

the “monuments” of the Church – written statements such as those produced by the ecumenical

councils, and the pope speaking ex cathedra. While tradition functions in the Orthodox Church

without any magisterium, through the community of believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the

Catholic view is that the body of the faithful does not have enough homogeneity to decide what is

35 Geiselmann, 40.36 Congar, 43.37 Dulles, 112.38 Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II.8 (Abbott, 115).39 Bruce, 167.

10

valid and what is not. Only the Magisterium, which has special grace for the purpose, can do this.40

Although the Magisterium has the authority to elaborate on and define Tradition, it is itself

answerable to the Scriptures and Tradition.41 (Protestants would say this is another example of

circular logic.) One of the steps the Magisterium takes to recognize true tradition is to look for

evidence of unanimity which is the fingerprint of the Holy Spirit. The dictum of Vincent of Lérins is

paramount: that which is held “everywhere, always, and by all”.42

Congar believes, along with several other theologians, that the body of the faithful gives

testimony in its own right, apart from the Magisterium, to tradition. It does not merely echo the

Magisterium’s teaching. It can bear a distinct witness which has even at times held true to the faith

while the Magisterium was in the midst of bickering about something (as in the Arian controversy).43

Nevertheless, the Magisterium has primacy. As Congar puts it, the Holy Spirit is the “transcendent

subject of Tradition,” the Church is “the visible and historical subject of Tradition,” and the

Magisterium is “the chief subject of Tradition.”44 But there is a mutual co-inherence of Scripture,

Tradition, and Magisterium in the Catholic view. None can operate apart from the others. And the

Holy Spirit is working through the interrelationship.

Ecumenically-minded Protestants are encouraged with the new direction of the Catholic

Church since Vatican II. But there is still concern about the Magisterium as a reliable authority for

doctrinal decrees, especially when it sanctions such dogmas as the Assumption of Mary (1950) and

the Immaculate Conception (1954), which are blatantly unscriptural. Furthermore, the

pronouncements of popes and bishops are conditioned by their own cultural milieus and

backgrounds.45 These fallible humans seem to take as Spirit-guided truth the folkloric beliefs of the

40 Congar, 65.41 Congar, 69.42 Congar, 69.43 Congar, 73-74.44 Congar, 51, 58, 63.45 Jenkins, 124.

11

masses. In interpreting Scripture, the Church should not presume to be holding future generations to

her same interpretation. She should always return to the biblical texts themselves and refer to

tradition merely as a guide.46

Protestants are no less susceptible to bizarre traditions. Ironically, some of the most anti-

traditionalist, biblicist groups are often the ones who make their own unique traditions a mark of

superiority. In some circles, you have to have the right formula for saying you are a Christian or

they suspect you of not being truly saved. Daniel Jenkins says that a Christian movement is doomed

to become a passing fad if it imagines itself to be emancipated from tradition.47

We are all products of tradition whether we know it or not, and that is a mixed blessing.

Tradition has both benefits and potential dangers associated with it. It is the normal way that most

Christians grow into a saving faith. It can protect us from unrestrained individualism and heresy.

Through liturgy, it acts as a safeguard against taking certain passages of Scripture while ignoring

others.48 On the other hand, tradition can lead to spiritual pride, fossilization of the past,49 formalism

(chiefly a problem in the Catholic Church), legalism (to which both Protestants and Catholics are

prone), and archaism (opposition to the modern world). This latter is propagated by denominational

seminary education and ethnic migration.50

Ultimately, we need both Scripture and tradition in order to keep us rooted in the faith of the

first Christians while not being stifled by mindless repetition of rituals we no longer understand.

Tradition must always be tested against Scripture which has supreme authority.

46 Cullmann, 27.47 Jenkins, 82.48 Congar, 93.49 Bruce, 171.50 Jenkins, 115-121.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Walter M., ed. “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” in The Documents of Vatican II. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.

Berkouwer, G. C. “Scripture and Tradition” in The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism, translated by Lewis B. Smedes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Bruce, F. F. Tradition: Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Buchanan, C. O., Mascall, E. L., Packer, J. I., and Bishop of Willesden. “Scripture and Tradition” in Growing Into Union. London: S. P. C. K., 1970.

Cullmann, Oscar. “Scripture and Tradition” in Christianity Divided. Edited by Daniel J. Callahan, et al. London: Sheed & Ward, 1962.

Congar, Yves M.-J. Tradition and the Life of the Church. London: Burns & Oates, 1964.

Dulles, Avery. “Tradition as a Theological Source” in The Craft of Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1995.

Florovsky, George. “The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church” and “The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers” in Eastern Orthodox Theology, edited by Daniel B Clendenin, 97-124. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Geiselmann, Josef Rupert. “Scripture, Tradition, and the Church: an Ecumenical Problem” in Christianity Divided. Edited by Daniel J. Callahan, et al. London: Sheed & Ward, 1962.

Jenkins, Daniel. Tradition and the Spirit. London: Faber and Faber, 1951.

Lossky, Vladimir. “Tradition and Traditions” in Eastern Orthodox Theology, edited by Daniel B Clendenin, 125-146. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

McGrath, Alister. “The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicals” in Doing Theology for the People of God, edited by Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath, 159-173. Downers Grove: IVP, 1996.

Meyendorff, John. “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective” in Eastern Orthodox Theology, edited by Daniel B Clendenin, 79-96. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Packer, J. I. “The Comfort of Conservatism”, in Power Religion, edited by Michael Scott Horton, 283-299. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Rodger, P. C. and Vischer, L., eds. The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order. London: SCM Press, 1964.

Tavard, George H. Holy Writ or Holy Church. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

13