Tradition in Catholicism

What is the role of tradition in religion?  Is it positive or negative?  In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative.  I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth he was living under the Law of Moses.  Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection.  In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity.  “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)  Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:4 NKJV)

Jesus had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish leaders of the land.  He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God.  Those accusations were based on what – scripture or tradition?  Obviously, on Jewish tradition but one has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its source just as do the Catholics of our day.

Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “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 commandment of God because of your tradition?  For God commanded, saying, 'honor your father and your mother'; and, 'he who curses 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.” (Mat 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)

The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets.  There would be no healing on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath.  The law of man-made tradition was made in their eyes into the law of God and they would hear of nothing else.  Scripture alone was not enough.  It had to be interpreted by those in positions of power within the religious community which resulted in additions, subtractions, and perversions.  Do you see any parallels in this to Roman Catholicism?  You should.

So that is where we were with tradition in the days when Jesus walked the earth.  Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time.  Judaism today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses. 

The apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings.  In Gal. 1:14 he talks of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV)  This would have been during the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Act 22:20 NKJV)  This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man. 

Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Act 26:10 NKJV)  This, of course, was before his conversion to Christianity but while he was enslaved to religious tradition. 

After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col 2:8 ESV)  So, we have been warned.  How can we say we have not?

But did not Paul speak positively about traditions?  He did so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6.  To the Corinthians he said he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV)  To the Thessalonians he said, “Hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)

What are we to make of these statements?  Just this, if Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we would call teaching.  What else would you call it?  A number of versions do not even use the word traditions here.  The King James Version uses the word “ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings” as does the Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word “doctrines.”  It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them. 

The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News Bible “truths,” YLT  (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.”  The same can be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word “paradosis.”  So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word but was speaking of his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or was writing to.

I add this, some of the things (commandments, teachings) from the Old Testament were carried over into the new and in that sense some of those things could be referred to as traditions if one chose to do so.  As one example, nine of the Ten Commandments were brought over into the New Testament the only one which was not was to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  Such a tradition when carried over took the force of a commandment for those living under the New Covenant, under Christianity.  Honor your father and mother can easily be seen as both a tradition and a commandment.

The apostle Peter also spoke of tradition.  He speaks of ‘aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of the Dispersion.  One can surely see Peter was not speaking positively of the tradition they had accepted.

One can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious tradition -- why?  Is it because it cannot be wrong?  Why can’t it?  If it could be wrong in the first century it can also be wrong in the twenty-first century. 

Having already written about Jewish tradition in the times of Jesus we move on.  It is time to turn to Roman Catholicism.  I assume the reader likely already knows that with Catholics tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over one’s spiritual life.  Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as being a sufficient guide to eternal life.  Furthermore, they have historically rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible on their own.  The church will tell you what it means.  You can have a Ph.D. in biblical languages, you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the church you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture.  If you want to know what scripture means you must listen to the church.  They will tell you.

What is a correct interpretation of a passage?  Whatever the church tells you.  That is why when you read about Jesus’ brothers and sisters in whatever standard translation you want to use you need the church to tell you it is not so.  They will then go into an explanation of why involving the meaning of Greek words as though the scholars who translated our Bible versions were not able to translate reliably.   This is just a singular example of how you need the church in Catholicism.

In Catholicism, it seems you get your doctrine first and then read back into scripture what you desire or need.  

In Catholicism, it is impossible for Mary to ever have been anything other than a lifelong virgin, despite Matt. 1:25, thus one must get rid of the brothers and sisters.  (I challenge anyone to read Matt. 13:55-56 in context and then say it means anything other than biological brothers and sisters.)

You cannot combat tradition in Catholicism.  Why not?  Because the church has declared itself infallible in its teachings and people blindly accept that.  It is an easy way out of being personally responsible.  The Catholic Church has made itself untouchable.  You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in the first century.  Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity and masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity likewise.  Eve did not get a pass from God for being deceived nor did the man of God who after prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13 was then deceived by an old prophet and paid for it with his life.  Should we hope for a pass if we allow ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition?

There is an aspect of Catholic tradition most people are unaware of who are not Catholic.  In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what you naturally think it means.  With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in the past and then been handed down.  We assume then that in religion it would be what has been handed down through the ages.  That would not be necessarily so, it seems to depend.

Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic dogmas.  When you do so you will find lists giving the dates of when this and that dogma became official.  There will be many of them crossing the span of the past two thousand years.  If these various dogmas came from scripture they would have been incorporated from the beginning of Christianity.  They came from tradition, Catholic tradition.  I bring this to your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all the way to the first century.  It jumps in wherever the powers that be want it.

Catholics disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition.  The traditional view, of which I have already spoken, separates tradition from scripture, but only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith, as some call it, or put another way “the word of God.”  Scripture by itself is only partial, only part of the word of God.  The word of God in Catholicism requires both scripture and tradition for completion.

A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition as being whatever the church says it is.  I know, I know, no Catholic would agree with this statement but hear me out.  With this second school of thought in Catholicism all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation).  Thus they can find in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine – transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find.  Some describe Catholic tradition as being “living.”  I would certainly agree with that, living and growing, and that is just the problem with it.

Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself.  It is not Christianity.  I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity but it long ago ceased to be Christian.  So, why are we surprised?  Did not the same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism?  Even the New Testament teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3).  The scripture teaches there will be a falling away so let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.

Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment.  As a Catholic I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New Testament.  I claim to believe scripture so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”? (NKJV)  It says my church will fall away for after all my church is the only true church according to Catholicism.

I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation.  Why not?  There is no one in Protestantism sitting "as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4).  In fact, since Protestantism is so diverse and divided it is hard to see how that could ever be.  And, yet, believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God?  I cannot solve this dilemma for the Catholics.  I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and when they do it will be said to be infallible for you see that is the way it is in Catholicism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]