The Catholic Church teaches us that Christ our Lord, the fullness of Revelation, commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel as the source of all saving truth and all moral teaching, thus communicating to them the divine gifts: the Gospel promised by the Prophets, which he himself fulfilled and proclaimed by his own lips.

The transmission of the Gospel, according to the Lord’s command, was accomplished in two ways:

Orally: The Apostles, by their preaching, their example and their instructions, handed on by word of mouth what they had learned from the works and teachings of Christ and what the Holy Spirit taught them.

In writing: The same Apostles and others of their generation put into writing the message of salvation, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The oral transmission we call “Sacred Tradition” (or more briefly in this context simply “Tradition”), and the written transmission we call “Sacred Scripture”. Both are intimately united and interpenetrating, because arising from the same source, they merge in a certain way and tend toward the same end.

Definition of Tradition

The word “tradition” in itself refers only to the transmission of beliefs, teachings and practices by both oral and written means. This is what tradition means: a message passed from hand to hand, from generation to generation.

Tradition in the Bible

If we ask what the Bible says about the word tradition, we find that the answer varies depending on the type of tradition being referred to, among which are:

Human Traditions

These are traditions whose origin is in man; they are not necessarily bad, except when they are customs or behaviors contrary to the commandments or to the will of God. Only in those circumstances does Jesus reject that kind of tradition[1]:

“They saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed — for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze. — And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?” And he said to them: “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said: Honour your father and your mother; and: He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die; but you say: If a man tells his father or his mother: What you would have gained from me is Corban — that is, given to God —, then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on; and many such things you do.”[2]

Jesus rejects here traditions whose origin was in human customs to which the Pharisees clung, such as washing hands before eating, the purification of objects, and even using pretexts to evade the obligation of supporting their parents. It is to these same kinds of traditions that the Apostle Paul refers when he speaks of human traditions “according to the elemental spirits of the universe and not according to Christ”:

“See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”[3]

Paul distinguishes these “worldly” traditions from the traditions of the Church based on the teaching of Jesus — hence the qualification: “and not according to Christ.”

Traditions of the Church

There is another set of traditions which Paul does not condemn but commands to be preserved:

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”[4]

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”[5]

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”[6]

In these texts a distinction is made between the different types of tradition, and it is the very same Apostle who on one hand commands separation from traditions “according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ” who on the other hand commands the preservation of the traditions they received from him and from the rest of the Apostles.

It is important to note that Saint Paul is not speaking only of those traditions received in written form, but also of those received orally, or “by word of mouth”.

Paradosis: The Greek Word Used in the Bible for Tradition

The Greek word used in all the foregoing passages is “paradosis”, meaning literally “tradition”. In Matthew 15:2 and Colossians 2:8 it is used to describe human traditions, but in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6 it is used to describe apostolic traditions.

It is no coincidence that in many Protestant translations of the Bible[7], in the passages where “paradosis” is used in reference to human traditions it is rendered exclusively with the word “tradition”, but in the passages where it signifies apostolic traditions it is replaced by words such as “teachings” or “instructions”. While one might argue that these could be considered synonyms, the effect produced is that readers tend to associate the word “tradition” exclusively with human traditions. It is little wonder that Protestants feel such aversion toward traditions when their own Bibles selectively translate this word.

The translators of these Bibles are evidently aware of this, since the word “didaskalia” is also used in Mark 7:7 and there they correctly translate it as “teachings”. In Mark 7:5 the word “paradosis” appears and they correctly translate it as “tradition”.

The Validity of Oral Tradition

Once the distinction has been drawn between those human traditions and the apostolic traditions, it is appropriate to examine more deeply the validity of tradition as part of the Revelation of the Gospel:

A Greek word related to tradition is “paradidomi”, meaning “to hand over” or “to transmit”, and it is used at least seven times in reference to Christian traditions:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word…”[8]

Luke affirms that these traditions, as they were being transmitted, were reliable accounts from eyewitnesses. These traditions, as we have already seen in passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, were also oral, communicated “by word of mouth”, and were not on that account considered any less reliable:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said: ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”[9]

In the foregoing passage, Paul does not explain in detail how to perform the breaking of bread; he simply reminds them of what he has already transmitted to them orally and gives them final exhortations and recommendations on this matter.

For this reason, Paul makes clear that he transmits what he has himself previously received:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.”[10]

“Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”[11]

“For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.”[12]

There are even passages that make manifest John’s preference for transmitting the Gospel orally rather than in written form:

“Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”[13]

Here again, John (like Paul) uses the expression “face to face” to refer to the oral transmission of the Gospel message. It is important to note that John is not saying he wishes to go and explain the letter to them; for him, the oral teaching he can give them is more important than what they might read. He knows that through his oral preaching the joy of the people will be complete. The Apostles were conscious that Jesus had commanded them to preach, not to write[14]; hence only five disciples left part of their teaching in written form — Peter, John, James the Less, Jude, and Matthew — while the rest of the twelve preached without pen in hand.

This is also reflected in Paul’s request to Timothy regarding what he had heard from him (in oral form): to entrust it to faithful men capable of instructing others in turn.

“and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”[15]

Another Greek word used in the Bible in relation to the tradition of the Church is “paralambano”, meaning “received”. This word appears at least seven times in connection with Christian and apostolic tradition:

“Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain.”[16]

Note that the transmission of this message was not solely in written form but also oral — it was a preached Gospel: “I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel.” That is why the first Christians received this apostolic preaching not as human teaching (despite being delivered by human beings) but as the very word of God:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”[17]

The word of God was primarily “preached”, and this had to be so because at this stage there did not yet exist what we today call the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark is estimated to have been the first written, between 65 and 75 A.D.; the Gospel of Matthew between 64 and 110 A.D.; the Gospel of Luke after 70 A.D.; and the Gospel of John probably between 95 and 100 A.D. This is without counting that the canon of the New Testament was determined in 397 A.D. Even after that, oral preaching was widely used, since transcribing a Bible could take from ten to twenty years of one person’s labor — an immense expense[18].

Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition

Thus, from the earliest ages of the Church, Christians have formulated theology upon three basic pillars: Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition served as the material principles of theology, since they contained the teachings received from the Apostles by oral and written means; and it was the Magisterium of the Church that made it possible to know with certainty the correct meaning of Revelation, functioning as the formal principle of theology.

By the Magisterium is understood the office of authentically interpreting oral or written Revelation, exercised in the name of Jesus Christ by the bishops in communion with the successor of the Apostle Peter. The Magisterium was responsible for maintaining the orthodoxy of Christian doctrine and protecting it from the distortions of those who misinterpreted and misrepresented it. On this point the Apostle Peter leaves several warnings:

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”[19]

“And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.”[20]

The Protestant Reformation and Sola Scriptura

The following chapter will analyze this point in depth; here we will limit ourselves to saying that the model in which believers are governed solely by their own understanding of Scripture had no precedent in the history of the Church, for the solution to conflicts that arose was never for each person individually to define every doctrine of faith for themselves. One example is found in Acts 15, which recounts the first serious problem the Church faced[21]. It was the Apostles united with the bishops and presbyters, assisted by the Holy Spirit, who settled the matter.

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”[22]

In this same manner, and through the various Ecumenical Councils and magisterial definitions, the Church was able progressively to eradicate the various errors that arose throughout history and remain united in doctrine. However, thanks now to the doctrine of the reformers, no believer was any longer required to submit to these decisions if he judged that they did not accord with his own interpretation of the Bible. Dogmas thus became relative to the judgment of each individual.

Although this approach allowed the reformers to usurp the authority of the Magisterium, it also granted the same right to every person. The great contradiction with their own principle was something they experienced firsthand when, in an alarming and ever-increasing number, there arose dissenters who differed from them on points they considered fundamental (and not so fundamental). As we shall demonstrate further on, when the reformers sensed that their “Reformation” was beginning to fragment into sects, they set aside the principle of private judgment in practice; and in most Protestant countries, the Bible Alone became the Bible Alone according to Luther, according to Calvin, according to Zwingli, or according to the reformer of the moment[23] — at least while these men could maintain their dominance. Today there are more than 30,000 distinct Protestant denominations and the number continues to grow daily.

But the doctrine of Sola Scriptura not only bore within itself the seed of division; it also contradicted Scripture itself. For according to this doctrine, if a teaching is true it must be proven from Scripture and through Scripture alone. If that is so, then Sola Scriptura must itself be proven in this manner, since it too is a doctrine. Yet in Scripture itself there is ample evidence to show that neither the Apostles nor the early Church thought in this way. They certainly regarded Scripture as the norm of faith, but they did not hold that absolutely all the teachings of the Church had to be contained therein, much less that each believer could define on his own authority what constituted doctrine of faith for the Church.

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”[24]

Evidently many things Jesus did and taught his Apostles were not set down in the Bible, including many explanations that comprised the correct interpretation of the Scriptures themselves[25]. The Apostle Paul commands the testing of the teachings received from the Prophets and the retention of what is good[26] — not the blind and unreflective rejection of everything one believes cannot be found in the Bible.

Arguments Commonly Used by Protestants to Justify Sola Scriptura

There is a large number of texts that Protestants typically cite in attempting to prove Sola Scriptura; none, however, succeeds in doing so. Let us examine them.

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”[27]

The foregoing passage is used with some frequency to affirm that, while it is true that not everything is found in the Bible, everything necessary for salvation is.

First of all it must be noted that the passage speaks not of the Bible but of “this book” (the Gospel of John), so that to interpret the passage in this way would be to leave aside teachings from the rest of Scripture — teachings as important as the Our Father (Matthew and Luke), the infancy of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), the Last Supper (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and so forth. This passage is not indicating that only what is contained therein is sufficient for formulating doctrinal treatises on religion, nor that the totality of Christian doctrinal teaching is enclosed within it; it is simply showing the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah as a first step toward salvation.

Another passage very commonly cited in support of Sola Scriptura is the following.

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”[28]

However, there is no way to read this text such that it serves to prove Sola Scriptura. Saying that something is useful for something does not mean that only that thing is useful for it. One can say that a hammer is a useful tool for a carpenter without thereby meaning that he can only avail himself of this tool to carry out his work. Likewise, in this text the Apostle is not saying that only Scripture can be used for teaching, reproof, correction, or training.

At the beginning of this chapter we saw several texts that explicitly contradict Sola Scriptura. The clearest example is 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul commands the preservation of the traditions learned from them, whether by word of mouth or by letter. Had Paul been thinking as the defenders of Sola Scriptura think, he would have limited himself to ordering the maintenance of those traditions received in written form — but he does not.

It is also important to note that Saint Paul here refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had learned in his childhood. A considerable portion of the New Testament had not been written during his childhood, and even some of the Catholic Epistles had not yet been written when Paul composed this letter. He refers, therefore, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and if the argument of this passage were to prove anything, it would prove too much — namely, that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary as a rule of faith.

Another text cited by defenders of Sola Scriptura is the following.

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”[29]

But it is enough to read the context to understand that the entire passage is an ethical exhortation to avoid pride, arrogance, and favoritism; at no point does it imply that only written teaching constitutes some kind of global pattern to be followed exclusively, to the exclusion of Tradition or oral teaching. Let us recall that if the interpretation of this passage is as its proponents suggest, we would once again be confronted with a doctrine applicable only to the Old Testament.

Less serious arguments in support of Sola Scriptura consist in citing Gospel passages where Jesus, when questioned by his enemies on some point of doctrine, responds by directing attention to a passage of the Old Testament[30]. This kind of verse can legitimately be used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority; it cannot, however, be used to prove Sola Scriptura.

When Jesus cites the Old Testament to prove a doctrine, he shows only that he considered that doctrine provable from a particular passage. It is evident that he did not believe all doctrine could be proven from the Old Testament, and it is therefore not surprising to see Jesus also responding to his opponents by appealing to his own authority or to other sources outside Scripture.

“And he said to them: “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” — Thus he declared all foods clean. —”[31]

This is one of many examples in which Jesus likewise teaches things on his own authority, and things that had not yet been written or revealed. Another biblical text used by defenders of Sola Scriptura is the following.

“I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”[32]

This passage is frequently interpreted by Protestants to mean that nothing should be added to the teaching of the Bible. But the text refers only to those who alter or adulterate the text of the Book of Revelation. When a biblical author wishes to refer to a particular book, he refers to it as John does here, or as he does in John 20:30. It is also important to recognize the distinction the Bible makes between the term “Scripture” in the singular[33], used to refer to a particular book, and “Scriptures” in the plural[34], used to refer to the totality of the Scriptures. The text, of course, in no way intends to deny the Church the authority to define truths of faith arising from reflection on the revealed datum.

Scott Hahn, a former evangelical minister and author of the book “Rome Sweet Home”, recounts the following anecdote.

“A student put to Professor Scott Hahn an embarrassing question he had never heard before: where does the Bible teach that Scripture is our only authority in matters of faith? Scott gave a weak answer that did not satisfy the student, and then changed the subject. Let us see what happened next.

“That night, driving home, I looked up at the stars and murmured: “Lord, what is happening? Where does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?”

These were the two pillars upon which Protestants had built their revolution against Rome. One had already fallen and the other was tottering. I felt afraid.

I studied for an entire week without reaching any conclusion. I even called several friends, but made no progress. Finally I spoke with two of the finest theologians in America and with some of my former professors. All those I consulted were surprised that I was asking them this question, and felt even more unsettled when I was not satisfied with their answers. I said to one professor:

— Perhaps I am suffering from amnesia, but I have forgotten the simple reasons why we Protestants believe the Bible to be our only authority.

— Scott, what a foolish question.

— Then give me a foolish answer.

— Scott, — he replied, — you actually cannot prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from Scripture. The Bible does not explicitly teach that it is the sole authority for Christians. In other words, Scott, Sola Scriptura is essentially the historical conviction of the reformers, set against the Catholic claim that authority resides in Scripture and, in addition, in the Church and Tradition. For us, therefore, this is merely a theological presupposition, our starting point, rather than a demonstrated conclusion. […]

— Scott, look at what the Catholic Church teaches. It is obvious that Tradition is wrong.

— Obviously it is wrong, — I agreed. — But where is the concept of Tradition condemned? And on the other hand, what did Paul mean when he asked the Thessalonians to hold fast to Tradition, both written and oral? — I pressed on. — Is it not ironic? We insist that Christians can only believe what the Bible teaches; but the Bible itself does not teach that it is our sole authority.”[35]

Conclusion

The Revelation of the Gospel, which we have received from our Lord Jesus Christ, is contained both in Sacred Scripture (the written word of God) and in Sacred Tradition (the spoken word of God). The two are complementary and cannot contradict each other.

It is also necessary to point out that the Sacred Tradition of which we speak here is that which comes from the Apostles and transmits what they received from the teachings and example of Jesus and from what they learned through the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself attests to the process of living Tradition. It is therefore necessary to distinguish from it the theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional “traditions” that arose in the course of time in local Churches. These constitute particular forms in which the great Tradition receives expressions adapted to different places and different ages. Only in the light of the great Tradition can those particular traditions be maintained, modified, or even abandoned under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church.

The paradox of the matter is that those who claim to be guided solely by the Bible end up obeying everything but what the Bible says. The denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, the sacrament of penance, the divine maternity of Mary, and many other doctrines firmly attested by Scripture are denied precisely by denominations that uphold Sola Scriptura as the sole norm of faith. This becomes nothing more than a pretext for interpreting the Bible on one’s own authority, reducing faith to a kind of cafeteria Christianity where each person believes whatever he wishes to believe.

Notes

  1. In Matthew 15:1-9 the same event is also narrated. ↩
  2. Mark 7:2-13 ↩
  3. Colossians 2:8 ↩
  4. 1 Corinthians 11:2 ↩
  5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ↩
  6. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ↩
  7. For example, the Reina Valera in its various versions. ↩
  8. Luke 1:1-2 ↩
  9. 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 ↩
  10. 1 Corinthians 15:3 ↩
  11. Jude 3 ↩
  12. 2 Peter 2:21 ↩
  13. 2 John 12 ↩
  14. Matthew 28:20 ↩
  15. 2 Timothy 2:2 ↩
  16. 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ↩
  17. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ↩
  18. The printing press was invented around 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg. ↩
  19. 2 Peter 1:20-21 ↩
  20. 2 Peter 3:15-17 ↩
  21. The Judaizing conflict. ↩
  22. Acts 15:28-29 ↩
  23. In this context the Protestant inquisitions arose. ↩
  24. John 21:25 ↩
  25. See for example Luke 24:27, where Jesus explains to his disciples in detail the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself. ↩
  26. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ↩
  27. John 20:30-31 ↩
  28. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 ↩
  29. 1 Corinthians 4:6 ↩
  30. An example of this in Luke 4:1-12 ↩
  31. Mark 7:18-19 ↩
  32. Revelation 22:18-19 ↩
  33. Acts 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:9; Galatians 3:8, 10, 13; 4:22, 27, 30; Hebrews 11:5; 2 Timothy 3:16, among many others. ↩
  34. Acts 13:27; 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Peter 3:16. ↩
  35. Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (Roma, dulce hogar, Ediciones Rialp, Madrid 2001, pp. 69-70). ↩