Roman Catholicism does not claim to rest upon the Bible alone but also upon “tradition” allegedly passed down from the apostles. However, there is absolutely no Catholic tradition which can be traced back to the apostles. None! Catholic traditions arose much later than that era, and the idea of infallibility was one of the latest traditions of all. The very concept of ex cathedra pronouncements, so central to infallibility, was not even imagined before the sixteenth century.
Moreover, it is admitted that tradition has gone through many changes. Vatican II acknowledges: “Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress . . . there is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.”1 It continues:
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. . . . Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence. . . .
It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.2
Serious problems with this view are immediately apparent: The Bible is not sufficient in itself, it cannot stand alone, and it does not have all the truth we need for salvation, but it must be supplemented by tradition and interpreted by the “Magisterium of the Church.” Neither the Roman Catholic Church with its magisterium nor its tradition existed during the 2000 years of Old Testament times, and obviously God’s Word of that era (which continues today and is larger in volume than the New Testament) had no need of either. We have seen how thoroughly this Catholic idea that the Bible is “insufficient” contradicts what the Bible itself says. Nor do the problems end there.
Without a tape recording of what was said it would obviously be impossible to trace any oral tradition back even ten years, let alone 1900 years back to the apostles. Oral statements leave no permanent record that can be verified. The problem wouldn’t be eliminated even if someone early in the second century, a mere 50 or 100 years after the apostles, wrote down what he claimed had been their oral teaching, for that would still leave a gap of oral transmission without verification. It is a simple fact that the Roman Catholic Church, for all its talk about apostolic tradition, cannot prove that even one of its traditions comes from the apostles!
Christ quoted from the Scriptures and said that all must be fulfilled (Mark 14:49; Luke 24:44). Never once did He quote tradition or suggest that it would be fulfilled—a strange omission if tradition is an essential part of Scripture. Paul assures us that all Scripture is “given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16; cf. 2 Peter 1:20,21). No such assurance is given for tradition. In fact, the opposite is implied. Paul tells Timothy to “preach the word . . . reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). He never said to preach tradition—again a strange omission if tradition is essential or even valid.
There is no Old Testament Jewish tradition which existed from Moses or David or Isaiah and which was to be observed in addition to God’s Word. Christ had nothing good to say about Jewish tradition, but denounced it as having perverted and rendered ineffective God’s Word (Matthew 15:1-9). He surely wouldn’t require the church to depend upon easily perverted oral tradition but would give her, as He gave Israel, all the instruction she needed in writing.
Scriptural References to Tradition
The words “tradition” or “traditions” occur 14 times in the New Testament. Eight references (Matthew 15:2,3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13) are Christ’s statements in the Gospels, and all of these are derogatory of Jewish traditions, as noted above. Paul makes five references, two of which are clearly derogatory (Colossians 2:8; Galatians 1:14). Peter’s one reference (1 Peter 1:18) is also derogatory. That leaves three favorable references by Paul: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2); “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by [our] word or our epistle. . . . Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6).
Upon these latter three verses Catholicism’s entire case for tradition rests. Yet none of these verses refers to Roman Catholic tradition as it has developed through the centuries since the days of the apostles. Paul was obviously speaking of things that he and/or the other apostles had already personally taught. He was not referring to traditions that might develop under the influence of unknown church leaders at some time in the future. Therefore, unless it can be demonstrated that present Roman Catholic tradition was first taught by the apostles and has remained pure to this day, no support for it can be found in these verses. And we have already shown that it is impossible to trace any present tradition back to the apostles.
Moreover, Roman Catholic traditions contradict the clear teaching of Scripture and thus could not possibly have been taught by the apostles. There are even contradictions within Catholic traditions themselves. In his On the Study of Sacred Scripture, Pope Leo XIII (1823-9) wrote that the Church Fathers “have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.” We have seen, too, that false decretals were manufactured and that they became the basis of much tradition and even of canon law that remains to this day.
Oral Tradition, a Temporary Expedient
While the New Testament was in the process of being written there was obviously a time when the early church relied upon the oral teachings of the apostles. We have every reason to believe, however, that whatever teaching the Holy Spirit inspired which was intended for all believers down through history would have been put into writing. This is true for the reasons already outlined: 1) There was no oral tradition passed down from Old Testament times from Moses, David, Samuel et al for Israel, so why would there be for the church? 2) Christ condemned all oral tradition developed by the rabbis as having perverted the written Word of God, so why would He want the church to have the same corrupting influence? 3) It is impossible either to trace oral tradition back to its source or to be certain of its accuracy. 4) Oral teaching must inevitably be corrupted in the process of transmission from one generation to the next. 5) Not everything that Paul or the other apostles ever said was on the level of Scripture and intended for believers in all ages, and the only sure way to make a distinction would be to put permanent teachings into writing.
That apostolic oral teachings which were intended for all time were put in writing is indicated by the apostles themselves. We have such evidence in Paul’s writings. In 1 Corinthians 11:23 he states that he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them orally: “that which also I [earlier] delivered unto you. . . . ” In 2 Thessalonians 2:5 Paul states the same thing: “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” He was giving them (and us) in writing what he had previously told them orally; and at the same time he was elaborating upon it and providing further understanding. The same thing is true of the tradition to which he refers in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Again he points out, “When we were with you, this [same thing] we commanded you [orally] . . .” (verse 10). Peter says the same: “Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance” (2 Peter 1:15). In other words, he put in writing what he had earlier taught them orally so they wouldn’t forget or corrupt it after his death.
Paul was deeply concerned about false doctrine. Much of his writing was to correct heresy. He warned the Ephesian elders: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29,30). It would be unreasonable, then, to imagine that Paul would not put into writing all that the Holy Spirit had inspired him to teach. If men would even pervert the written truth, how much easier to pervert what was oral, as memories failed and new generations came which had never heard the original teaching.
What About Written Tradition?
The written tradition in Catholicism comes from works of the so-called Church Fathers. Unfortunately, a great deal of fraud is mixed in and is often indistinguishable from fact. These frauds became the source of ideas that remain as established dogmas today, such as the saying attributed in the Isidorian Decretals to Pope Julius about 338 that “the Church of Rome, by a singular privilege, has the right of opening and shutting the gates of heaven to whom she will” and that the popes inherit “innocence and sanctity from Peter” and are therefore holy and infallible and all Christendom must tremble before them.3 Such statements are clearly not biblical. From his exhaustive studies of the original historic documents, von Dollinger informs us:
Towards the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth century, the process of forgeries and fictions in the interests of Rome was actively carried on there. Then began the compilation of spurious acts of Roman martyrs, which was continued for some centuries, and which modern criticism, even at Rome, has been obliged to give up. . . .
While this tendency to forging documents was so strong in Rome, it is remarkable that for a thousand years no attempt was made there to form a collection of canons . . . more than twenty Synods had been held in Rome since 313, but there were no records of them to be found.4
Spurious tradition was manufactured and eventually became the basis for almost the entire papal system and much canon law. It was the false Decretals, revised and elaborated upon century after century, which formulated Roman Catholicism as it is today. Von Dollinger informs us further:
Gregory VII . . . regarded himself not merely as the reformer of the Church, but as the divinely commissioned founder of a wholly new order. . . .
Gregory collected about him by degrees the right men for elaborating his system of Church law. . . . Anselm may be called the founder of the new Gregorian system of Church law, first, by extracting and putting into convenient working shape everything in the Isidorian forgeries serviceable for Papal absolutism; next, by altering the law of the Church, through a tissue of fresh inventions and interpolations. . . .
Clearly and cautiously as the Gregorian party went to work, they lived in a world of dreams and illusions about the past and about remote countries. They could not escape the imperative necessity of demonstrating their new system to have been the constant practice of the Church, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish where involuntary delusion merged into conscious deceit. Whatever present exigencies required was selected from the mythical stores at their command hastily and recklessly; then fresh inventions were added, and soon every claim of Rome could be shown to have a legitimate foundation in existing [fraudulent] records and decrees.5
The Decretals were used to build up fictitious sayings of the popes (which thereafter became the law) and to put tradition (and false tradition at that) on a par with Scripture. Moreover, unlike the Bible, which is readily available in one volume, tradition is contained in many volumes of the alleged writings of the Church fathers and the decrees of the Councils. Voluminous and not accessible to the average person, it consists of: at least 35 volumes of Greek and Latin church fathers, usually ending with Gregory I in A.D. 604; another 35 volumes of Church council decrees; about 25 volumes of the popes’ sayings and decrees; about 55 volumes of the alleged sayings and deeds of the saints, some 150 volumes in all. Richard Bennett, former Catholic priest, explains further:
The ordinary Roman Catholic bishop or priest, let alone the ordinary Catholic, can never find all of his tradition, or read it since it is in many dead and foreign languages. Even if all were available in translation, a person could never master 150 volumes in such a way as to be one with the Bible. To declare, therefore, that [the Bible plus] sacred tradition forms a single deposit of Scripture is absurd.6
Clearly, by its sheer volume, Catholic “sacred tradition” far outweighs the Bible by about 150 to 1. Thus the average Catholic doesn’t have access to the greater part of what the Church calls “the Word of God.” Moreover, unlike the Bible (which much of it contradicts), written tradition and official dogma of the Church have frequently changed, even propounding contradictory ideas on such important topics as abortion. Most Catholics are not aware that the infallible Church and popes have changed their minds several times on this topic—unthinkable from today’s perspective.
From the fifth century onward, Aristotle’s view that the embryo goes through stages from vegetable to animal to spiritual was accepted. Only in the final stage was it human. Thus Gregory VI (1045-6) said, “He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.” Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn’t yet human. His successor, Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed. His Bull of 1588 made all abortions for any reason homicide and cause for excommunication. His successor, Gregory XIV, reversed that decree. In 1621 the Vatican issued another pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days. As late as the eighteenth century the Church’s greatest moral theologian, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, still denied that the soul was infused at conception and allowed for flexibility, especially when the mother’s life was in danger. Finally, in 1869, Pius IX declared that any destruction of any embryo was an abortion and merited excommunication—a view that remains to this day.