Roman Catholics, and to some extent Eastern Orthodox, reject Sola Scriptura because they believe that the Word of God is infallibly conveyed not in Scripture alone, but in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Father George Tavard, Catholic theologian, says that Sacred Tradition is: "inseparable from the Bible itself. Both are to be read together. They stand or fall together."
But what exactly is meant by "Sacred Tradition"? It appears difficult to define. The Council of Trent defined it like this:
Sacred Tradition also appears to include how the church fathers traditionally interpreted Scripture. Trent again:
R.A.F. Mackenzie, Catholic theologian, furthermore adds that Sacred Tradition includes the present application of Scripture and church teaching to new questions faced by the church. He says of Scripture alone:
What are the problems with the concept of Sacred Tradition? There are several:
But what exactly is meant by "Sacred Tradition"? It appears difficult to define. The Council of Trent defined it like this:
"[the Gospel is] the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. [This council] clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were by hand... [This council receives the books of Scripture and] also morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession."
According to these words, Sacred Tradition is the collection of "saving truths" to believe and "rules of conduct" to live by which were taught by Christ, received and taught by the apostles, and passed on to the bishops in every age of the church, but were not written down.
Sacred Tradition also appears to include how the church fathers traditionally interpreted Scripture. Trent again:
"[No individual should] presume to interpret [the Scriptures] in accordance with his own conceptions...contrary to the 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..."
Sacred Tradition is, then, also the way that the Catholic Church has tended to interpret the Bible. Tavard summarizes Trent's view on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture like this:
"Scripture contains all revealed doctrine, and the Church's faith which includes apostolic traditions, interprets it."
R.A.F. Mackenzie, Catholic theologian, furthermore adds that Sacred Tradition includes the present application of Scripture and church teaching to new questions faced by the church. He says of Scripture alone:
"...a written record is a dead letter, needing constant interpretation and commentary in succeeding ages. It cannot of itself answer new questions, or explain what was once clear and has now become obscure. The writings transmitted in a living community, from one generation to another, are accompanied by a continuous tradition of understanding and explanation...which applies them...to the solving of new problems."
So altogether, we can say that Sacred Tradition is a collection of teachings concerning things we should believe and do which were taught by Jesus Christ but not written down, how the church has historically interpreted Scripture, the doctrinal statements of the church which come from her councils, and how the Bible is currently interpreted by the church to answer new questions and solve new problems.
What are the problems with the concept of Sacred Tradition? There are several:
- Apart from the authoritative writings of the apostles, we cannot be sure that a teaching came from Christ or the apostles because men are fallible.
- Just because an interpretation of Scripture enjoys a long tradition and antiquity does not make this interpretation correct. If it can be shown, from Scripture itself, that a traditional interpretation is wrong then it should be rejected.
- The Magisterium of the Catholic church has often taught doctrines which are not substantiated by Scripture. Therefore the claim that Catholic Tradition and Scripture are always perfectly unified is false. Many Catholic doctrines go well beyond Scripture and some even flatly contradict Scripture. If "tradition" were nothing more than the accurate interpretation of Scripture then we should accept tradition as the Word of God. But Catholic Tradition often goes beyond Scripture.
- This makes the rulings, interpretations, and doctrinal statements of the church irrevocable. We cannot change Scripture because it is the word of God. But if the church made a wrong judgment at a particular time in history, the church of later generations should have the freedom to recognize this erroneous judgment and to correct it. There's no reason why this cannot be part of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth.
- This very process was occurring in Jesus' own day with the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes. Pharisaical teaching surrounding Scripture and ultimately came to obscure and go beyond Scripture. Jesus contradicted the Pharisees, condemned this practice, and sought to go back to Scripture itself.
- This really just amounts to saying that Catholic Doctrine is infallible. Since the concept of Sacred Tradition was not really developed until the Council of Trent, it is obvious that this was a move from the Roman Church to respond to the Reformation. Any doctrinal statements or interpretations of any church are always subject to the Word of God and open to question. If it can be demonstrated that such a judgment does not concord with God's Word then it should be rejected.
Last edited:
