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.]

The Intersection of Politics and Christianity

(This is a twelve year old article but I find it relevant for today so post it.)

I write this under the date of March 6, 2012.  By now virtually everyone who follows the news at all has heard of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student, who testified before a portion of Congress recently arguing that birth control pills should be covered by her employer's health care plan.  She argued that it is just too expensive for students to purchase the pills on their own.

As you know the President's health care plan has a contraception mandate in it requiring employers or their insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives.  This has aroused a fight between the President and the leaders of the Catholic Church whose church doctrine opposes the use of contraceptives.  They argue his mandate is a matter of the violation of the church and state relationship whereby the state is trying to force upon the church a requirement that they provide a service or pay for it that is directly contrary to their church doctrine while the President and his party argue it is a matter of women's rights and health care.

Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative talk radio personality, got involved last week by calling Ms. Fluke a slut.  Here is a part of Limbaugh's monologue quoted from the March 2nd ABC News Web Site online from the blog posted there by Mary Bruce.

"'What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute,' Limbaugh said Wednesday.  'She wants to be paid to have sex.  She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.  She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.  What does that make us?  We're the pimps.'"

The President then became involved making a phone call to Ms. Fluke to offer his support to her, commending her for her testimony, and expressing his disappointment that she had been subjected to these personal attacks.

I have written all of the above so you the reader have the necessary background information before you to see where I am coming from in the remarks I am about to make.  First, I want to tell you what this article is not about.  It is not about the use of contraceptives.  It is not about whether or not the government should mandate that health care plans cover contraceptives.  It is not about the Catholic Church or any of its doctrines.  It is not about Rush Limbaugh and whether or not he should have said what he said.  What it is about is defending that which is scripturally indefensible, fornication.

What kind of a country do we live in when we have national leaders that go to bat for unmarried college women, commending them, for basically committing fornication?  Now I fully understand that some women have health issues that may require birth control pills for reasons other than birth control.  I am fine with that but do not be misled or so naïve that you think that Ms. Fluke was advocating for that reason and for that small group of college-age women that fit into that category.  She had in mind birth control pills for college coeds who needed them for birth control pure and simple.  President Obama was not so naïve that he did not know that and yet his desire was to render support.

Paul guided by the Holy Spirit said, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9 KJV)  Paul spoke of these acts as being unrighteous.  He says those who do such things "shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

He says in 1 Cor. 6:18, "Flee fornication.  Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." (KJV)  Did you get that?  The Bible calls fornication a sin.  Now who is worse—Rush Limbaugh for calling names or our national leaders whose desire it is to defend the indefensible, defend sin?  God will decide.

In an article entitled "Rush Limbaugh Apologies for Calling Sandra Fluke a 'Slut,'" dated Sat., Mar 3, 2012, by Dean Schabner and Matt Negrin on the ABC NEWS online site, President Obama is said to have called Ms. Fluke "to tell her that her parents should be proud of her for speaking out for women."  I can tell you had that been my sister in the 1960’s testifying before Congress, unmarried, a single college student, that she needed insurance coverage for her birth control pills I don't know what would have happened at home at our house but it would not have been pretty and "proud" is the last thing in the world my parents would have been and they would have been right.  Don’t confound the holding of high political office with holiness and righteousness.

It is past time to quit calling this country a Christian nation.  It has aborted millions of babies (a holocaust), every year we have more and more states legalizing gay marriages which involve the sexual act the Bible refers to as an abomination (Lev. 18:22), we are slowly but surely destroying God's definition of marriage, and now we think it is wonderful that a college student advocate for birth control for fornication and commend her for taking such a stand.

As I write this piece I am 65 just having had a birthday about 3 weeks ago.  I think back on the days of my childhood and youth and how the morals of this country have changed.  The big push toward massive national immorality came in my college years in the late 60's with the hippie generation, the sexual revolution, Woodstock, drugs, etc.  I came from a very tiny rural community and graduated from high school in a class of 10 students.  A big class for our community was 16 which is what the class ahead of me had.  But, the point I want to make is I never knew of but one kid who came from a divorced family.  Nearly every child lived with their biological family.  I graduated from high school in 1965.

Children today do not have parents.  They have live-ins, here today, gone tomorrow.  It is mom's boyfriend, not dad.  It is dad's girlfriend, not mom.  What a life we live today but I thought everything was supposed to get better with time.  I thought it was called progress and was inevitable.  Man was to be his own master.  Maybe we just need a few more laws passed by our legislatures or a few more mandates to make us what we ought to be.  Maybe a little more ignoring of God would help (hope you recognize satire).

This article was not written with the intent to condemn or attack Ms. Fluke.  The truth is "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 KJV)  Furthermore, if people would study up on the Greek word translated fornication (the Greek being the word porneia) they would quickly learn why most modern translations have dropped the word fornication and replaced it with the more general term "sexual immorality."  Some want to argue that "sexual immorality" is too broad a term and covers too much ground for the Greek.  That is wishful thinking and reflects a lack of in-depth study.  The best study I have ever come across on the subject is a 20-page article by Oscar Miles in Faith and Facts Quarterly, April 2008, Vol 36, Number 2, pages 36-56.  It is a scholarly work with in-depth research with 39 footnotes reflecting that research.

The purpose of what I just said was to make the point that there are a lot more people guilty of fornication (Greek "porneia") than ever thought they were.  One does not have to be involved in the act of procreation to commit the sin of fornication for all sexual immorality is covered by the Greek word as accurately reflected by the more modern day Bible translations.  People commit fornication, sexual immorality, who have no need of birth control pills. 

So the article is not about Ms. Fluke specifically or even about a particular sin or group of sins but it is about a so-called Christian nation that has lost its way and no longer has any use for the Bible; a nation whose desire is to become a secular state and discard religion.  It is about government and government officials who would not know what a sin was if it slapped them in the face and who promote sin and applaud it.  We get what we want, what we desire.  We also get to reap the consequences; we get to reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7).

People on the one hand do not want to obey God and want to ridicule his outdated commandments, as they see them, but on the other hand, when tragedy strikes they want to think it could not possibly be God punishing this great righteous nation.  It is foolish for a man to say any one event is an act of God in punishment of a nation for no man can know that.  However, is it not also foolishness to think God is just going to continue endlessly to put up with our sins?

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17 NKJV)  We have forgotten God in our morality and our government.  We govern ourselves by the men and women we vote into office.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for what happens to us as a nation.  I hope I am not here when God decides the day has come for our punishment.  We are surely not a righteous nation. 

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

Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins?  The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual's part.  It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation.   It is hard to understand but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teach we are saved by faith which no one doubts but they add the word “alone.”  And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV, see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT)  The King James Version and the New King James Version reads “not by faith only.”

One has to remember faith has to be defined.  When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith?  If it is a living faith it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active.  To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question.  In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached.  Were those people in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith?  Certainly!  They were but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).  Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it, the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching, saved at the point of faith; based on what they teach their doctrine demands it.  They would deny that but only in part.  They would say you must repent but to do that you have to split Peter’s preaching in half taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism.  One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence or in this case to Peter’s oral command.  Or, should we say the Holy Spirit’s oral command?  Yes, we should.

But, if they include repentance in their faith alone doctrine then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone” for that it would not be.    

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented but had developed faith.  We know they had come to faith for the text says “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and ask Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)  We know Peter’s response.  Why command people to repent who have already repented?  Peter commanded them to repent thus they had not done so even though they had faith.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin.  These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus when they asked what shall we do.  The text says they were cut to the heart.  Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) but it is not repentance.  To repent one must turn from sin to righteousness.  It is a state of mind and will.  It is a determination to cease sinning and live righteously.  One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith.  The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism.  Some of the faith-only people like to say repentance is inherent in faith, that faith is a synecdoche.  Yes, I believe that is true at times but when used that way it includes not just repentance but baptism also.  That they will not accept.  However, in Acts 2 faith is clearly not a synecdoche.  The question they must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when those people were saved.  The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.  

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins.  There is no truth in it but for the sake of argument let us pursue the thought.  If that was so then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins.  You can be forgiven without repentance.  If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins.  Saved without repentance.  Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, would be good to ask the faith-only people.  Had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it and repented and been saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized?  Their doctrine demands that if they are consistent.  And, in such a scenario could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused baptism?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed.  But, in an undisputed passage Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  You cannot go to heaven without baptism. 

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission for in it Jesus commanded baptism.  “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved?  He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) 

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

The Catholic Doctrine Concerning Scripture and Tradition

 Roman Catholics are not willing to accept the Bible as the sole authority in religion.  To do so would destroy the Catholic Church for once you remove the authority of the priests and the Catholic hierarchy there goes the authority of the church and its power over men. 

The Catholic Church in history sought to keep the scriptures from the laity.  “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament …  we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” (Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195).  At the Council of Tarragona in 1234 it was decreed, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments.”

The following quote from Pope Gregory XVI pretty much sums up the attitude the Roman Catholic Church held for centuries regarding the Bible and the laity. 

From the encyclical INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) by Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844:

“1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that we now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher ‘common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists,’ and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.”

And more from the same source:

“12. ... In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”

The last three lines explain the fear of the scriptures on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—the fear that those who read the scriptures will have their eyes opened and reject “the tradition of the Fathers” and “the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”  That did happen, the Reformation, and we entered into the modern era where attempts to withhold the scriptures became an act of futility, impossible to do.  However, by studying history we can see what the desire had been as long as it was possible to carry it out.

Part of Catholic tradition and essential to it is to have scripture interpreted the way the hierarchy wants it interpreted.  Thus, for example, no matter how clear the New Testament text seems to be to the average person it remains a requisite to Catholicism that Mary, the mother of Jesus, be a perpetual virgin.  You are incapable of reading the scriptural texts about Mary and understanding them without the aid of the Catholic Church.  When you read about Jesus having brothers and sisters that runs against the tradition and so cannot be a correct understanding, the church will tell you what those verses are saying.  Even if you have a Ph.D. interpreting those verses will be too tough for you without their aid.

But, what is Catholic tradition?  It might surprise you.  When most of us think of tradition we think of that which developed in the past in the family or some institution-- a school, a team, a country, etc.--whereby certain activities or customs are passed on from time past into the present day.  It might be a traditional yearly get-together.  We all understand tradition in that aspect of it.

But we also understand that as tradition has a beginning it also has an end.  If you are older you have likely experienced it in your own family.  What you once did as tradition you no longer do.  That is fine in the normal course of the life of a man, the circumstances of our lives change over time, but when it comes to religion we do not expect an ever-changing God with ever-changing doctrines and commandments for us to live by.  Yet, that is exactly what you get with religious tradition in Roman Catholicism.

The change from the Mosaical Law to Christianity was not a change of God’s mind but planned before the world was established.  “He (Christ – DS) indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV)  He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8 NKJV)  He was the seed promise to Abraham that through his seed all the earth would be blessed (Gal. 3:8, 16).  The point is that God does not change.  Roman Catholicism changes continually.

The average person not knowing any better would think that when a doctrine is based on tradition in Catholicism it would mean that the early church held that doctrine.  That is what you would think but you would be mistaken.  Under Catholicism, a doctrine based on tradition can begin evolving at any point in time.  It does not have to trace its roots back to the first century.  Why not?  Because Catholicism is its own authority.  It derives its authority from itself; it sees itself as the fountain, or source, of authority.  Thus one will find various Catholic dogmas first stated in generations far removed from the first century and the early church.    

For example, the doctrine of purgatory was officially proclaimed as dogma in 1438.  By dogma, it is meant you are obliged to believe it if you are to be a faithful Catholic.  This means you could have been a faithful Catholic and not believed in purgatory until 1438, well over a thousand years after Christ.  After 1438 you are unfaithful if you don’t believe in it.  You have a moving target for faithfulness. 

Now where do you find purgatory in the New Testament?  You don’t is the quick and accurate answer.  If they tell you such and such scriptures teach it (and I do know they rely on certain scriptures for this) then my response is “why did it take you over a thousand years to discover it?”  The point I am getting at is that Catholicism makes up its doctrines and dogmas as it goes along.  It is like playing a game where you are the sole rule maker and can change the rules as the game goes along and no one has a right to challenge you thus you always win.

Now for the Catholics, I do understand that the doctrine of purgatory evolved and began with the idea of praying for the dead.  From there one idea led to another but that is just my point—the doctrine was not given by revelation but by the philosophizing of men.  There was no revelation; there was only men's reasoning; it was “this is what seems right and reasonable to us.”  That is what all of us non-Catholics have to understand about Catholicism.  Tradition with the Catholics is often no more than the evolution of thought among Catholics, especially the Catholic hierarchy, until a dogma, an official teaching, comes out of it.

What I have done here with the doctrine of purgatory you can do with many other dogmas found in Catholicism.  Search out the date the doctrine became dogma and begin asking questions about it like why then and not earlier.  Why now?  What is the source, etc., etc?  Try it with the teachings about Mary.  I say that because I know you will find fruitful digging.  You will not come up empty-handed.

The non-Catholic must understand the terminology of the Catholic Church or be misled.  If you are not Catholic, but Christian, when you hear the phrase “the word of God” you immediately think of the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.  With the Catholic that is not the case.  With the Catholics, the word of God is the combination of the scriptures and what they call “Sacred Tradition.”  This is the tradition we have been talking about.  Scripture alone is insufficient with the Catholic.  Indeed, tradition will overrule scripture if the need arises for scripture will be interpreted to ensure the desired outcome, one that is in accord with what they teach no matter how incredible the interpretation may seem.

Tradition ends up being whatever we want it to be in Catholicism.  It can be based on any number of things.  It can be simply what we want to believe and thus practice.  I mentioned Mary earlier.  Catholics have a doctrine called the Assumption of Mary which says Mary, after her death, was taken bodily into heaven and thus her body never underwent decay.  This teaching was not to be found in any of the first twenty ecumenical councils, not found in any creeds, only found in the writings of two of the eighty-eight church fathers so-called and both of them wrote in the 7^th century, none of the major church doctors wrote of it and only 1 of the minor doctors and he lived hundreds of years after Christ and yet, based on tradition, the bodily assumption of Mary became dogma.

How could that be?  What tradition?  It was based on the teachings of the bishops alive at the time.  The church calls these bishops and what they are teaching “the Ordinary Magisterium,” and it is considered an infallible guide to the faith.  And it was based on what the church in practice was already doing-- honoring Mary’s assumption, dogma or no dogma, by its practices.  They already had a feast of Mary’s Assumption on August 15^th, they had set up in churches sacred images of the assumption, the church’s liturgy made references to Mary’s Assumption, etc., thus in 1950 the Pope declared the assumption to be dogma.  In Catholicism what we desire, what we are doing, what we are practicing, becomes dogma if we are patient long enough and there is enough of us involved to put the pressure on.  This is Catholic tradition placed on an equal footing with the scriptures.  Abide in it?  Who can?

Well, there is one group – the Catholic hierarchy.  They have a huge stake in maintaining the status quo. 

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