Roman Catholic apologists will frequently bring forward quotes from the church fathers that mention ‘tradition’. They imply
that the church fathers believed in some extra-Biblical authoritative Tradition that was used to interpret the Bible. However,
this is highly misleading. Roman apologists frequently make the error of anachronistically reading the modern meaning of a word
back into its historic use of centuries past, and this is especially true of the word ‘tradition’ in the writings of the church fathers. Some of the church fathers that are frequently quoted are:
1. Irenaeus
2. Tertullian
3. Clement of
4. Origen
5. Cyril
of
6. Athanasius
7. John Chrysostom
8. Basil of
In this article, the misuse of these early Christians by Roman
apologists will be dealt with:
Irenaeus
An example of
one of the quotes by Irenaeus that employs the word ‘tradition’ is as follows:
“As I have already observed, the Church, having
received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully
preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims
them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages
of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany
do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt,
nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God,
is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that
are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in
point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he
who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one
who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.”
(emphasis mine)
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.2
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364
The
implication of Roman apologists is that Irenaeus is teaching that there is an oral tradition that originates with the apostles that
is equal in authority with Scripture and properly interprets Scripture. However, Roman Catholic apologists never quote the paragraph
above 1.10.2 in which Irenaeus tells us the content of this ‘tradition’:
“The Church, though dispersed through our the whole
world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God,
who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and
the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the
flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all
things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour,
and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send
"spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked,
and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy,
and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and
others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.1
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364
In other words, the ‘tradition’
Irenaeus is referring to is merely the contents of the Apostle’s Creed which is a summation of the faith clearly explained in Scripture. In fact, Irenaeus believed that all doctrines and traditions must be proved from Scripture:
But that all his Epistles are consonant
to these declarations, I shall, when expounding the apostle, show from the Epistles themselves, in the right place. But while I bring
out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou
also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained
in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.
–Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.9 (emphasis mine)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7525_2024213
The early church
scholar, J.N.D. Kelly makes these comments about Irenaeus:
“Did Irenaeus then subordinate Scripture to unwritten tradition? This inference has been commonly drawn, but it issues from a somewhat misleading antithesis…But a careful analysis of his Adversus
haereses reveals that, while the Gnostics’ appeal to their supposed secret tradition forced him to stress the superiority of the Church’s
public tradition, his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture. Indeed, tradition itself was confirmed by Scripture…”
–J.N.D.
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (
R.P.C. Hanson makes these comments:
“The
whole purpose of Irenaeus, at least, as we can reliably collect it from the prefaces and endings of each of the books of Adversus
Haereses, was to refute the Gnostics from Scripture…Irenaeus will allow Scripture alone as his source of information about God, and
if Scripture tells us nothing, then we can know nothing.”
-R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the
Tertullian
A passage from Tertullian’s
writings that Roman Catholic apologists use is from De Corona:
“If,
for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth
to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and
custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”
-Tertullian, De Corona 4
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-10.htm#P1035_422175
From this, Roman apologists try to say
that Tertullian was appealing to ‘tradition’ as an authority for doctrine on an equal level with Scripture. However, this is
highly misleading. Just like Irenaeus, the context and the meaning of ‘tradition’ in this quote are found in the paragraph above
it:
“And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation
has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt
flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading
tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should
not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written
instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal
with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence
of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels.
Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken
up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for
a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist,
which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes
round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful.
We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be
cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our our clothes and shoes, when
we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon
the forehead the sign.”
-Tertullian, De Corona 3
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-10.htm#P1035_422175
The
‘traditions’ that Tertullian referred to were ecclesial customs such as triple emersion baptism, a tradition which is not even practiced
in the Roman Catholic Church. These customs were of secondary importance and not doctrines, and Tertullian never used ‘tradition’
to prove doctrine without that ‘tradition’ being proved from Scripture. J.N.D. Kelly notes:
“In its primary sense, however,
the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he [Tertullian] never contrasted
tradition so understood with Scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles wrote down their oral preaching
in epistles. For this reason, Scripture has absolute authority, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in
it.”
–J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (
Clement
of
Clement of
“Now that
the Saviour has taught the apostles, the unwritten rendering of the written [Scripture] has been handed down also to us, inscribed
by the power of God on hearts new, according to the renovation of the book.”
-Clement of
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-67.htm#P9140_2570461
Likewise, Origen refers
to an apostolic tradition:
“For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians
to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and
were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some
of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the
apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs
in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.”
-Origen, De Principiis, Preface 2
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-44.htm#P6205_1085826
The implication made by Roman apologists
in quoting passages like this is that Clement believed in a separate oral tradition which was a guide to properly interpreting Scripture. This is true in a sense, but the ‘apostolic’ tradition that Clement and Origen taught is completely at odds with the Roman Catholic
tradition. The ‘tradition’ that the Alexandrians believed to have been taught by the apostles was allegorical interpretation,
an interpretation that has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church:
“For many reasons, then, the Scriptures hide the sense…for
the style of the Scriptures is parabolic…But on the Scriptures being opened up, and declaring the truth to those who have ears, they
proclaim the very suffering endured by the flesh, which the Lord assumed, to be "the power and wisdom of God." And finally, the parabolic
style of Scripture being of the greatest antiquity, as we have shown, abounded most, as was to be expected, in the prophets, in order
that the Holy Spirit might show that the philosophers among the Greeks, and the wise men among the Barbarians besides, were ignorant
of the future coming of the Lord, and of the mystic teaching that was to be delivered by Him…But as the work advances, we shall in
each section, noting the figures of speech mentioned above by the prophet, exhibit the gnostic mode of life, showing it systematically
according to the rule of the truth.”
-Clement of
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-67.htm#P9140_2570461
“The apostle, moreover, says, "Even unto this
day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart: nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away:
and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." For so long as any one is not converted to a spiritual understanding,
a veil is placed over his heart, with which veil, i.e., a gross understanding, Scripture itself is said or thought to be covered:
and this is the meaning of the statement that a veil was placed over the countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, i.e., when
the law was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also is the word of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual
knowledge, then the veil is taken away, and with unveiled face we shall behold the glory of the Lord in the holy Scriptures.”
-Origen, De Principiis 1.1.2
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6244_1101010
Contrary to Roman Catholic claims,
Clement and Origen did believe that the Scriptures were clear enough (without their ‘tradition’) for those who read them to come to
a saving knowledge of the truth:
But if from any creature they received in any way whatever the seeds of the Truth, they did
not nourish them; but committing them to a barren and reinless soil, they choked them with weeds, as the Pharisees revolted from the
Law, by introducing human teachings,-the cause of these being not the Teacher, but those who choose to disobey. But those of them
who believed the Lord's advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, attain to the knowledge of the law; as also those addicted
to philosophy, by the teaching of the Lord, are introduced into the knowledge of the true philosophy: "For the oracles of the Lord
are pure oracles, melted in the fire, tried in the earth, purified seven times."
–Clement of
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-67.htm#P8703_2430399
The Nature of
Tradition in the
Early Church
(Part 1)