Yves Congar O.P. in Tradition and traditions has some insightful comments on tradition which help to clarify the usual Protestant misconception of Jesus’ condemnation of tradition.
But the content of the tradition that Jesus taught was new, and inevitably there was conflict. He came up against the rabbinical traditions in their casuistic interpretations of the Law. He who brought the good news of deliverance from the Law by faith and love condemned and rejected these traditions as being altogether to human and tending to vitiate and replace the commandments of God. Jesus does not condemn the principle of tradition; he condemns the very grave abuse which allows a tradition of human origin to oust one which God himself had delivered and ordered to be transmitted.
That is why we do not find the word “tradition” used by Jesus himself except as the object of an unfavourable judgment. But at the same time the context of his remarks is clearly defined (cf. Mt 15.1-9; Mk 7.1-13). Jesus takes the opportunity, when the Pharisees and some of the scribes are reproaching his disciples for not observing certain regulations concerning ritual purity, to confront them on the whole basis of their attitude: they were enervating the genuine Law of God, which is geared to love, by purely human interpretations to which they were attributing absolute value. But the time had come for the Son of Man, who was also the Son of God, to replace the magisterium of the scribes and the masters of the Law with another power of binding and loosing, based on the messianic justice, whose working basis was faith (pgs. 7-8).
Yves Congar notes that the context is clearly defined. Not only the context, but also the extent of the condemnation.
What is Jesus condemning here?
- 6 He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;7 In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ 8 You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” 9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
Quite clearly Jesus condemns a (1) human tradition which (2) is taught as if it were divinely revealed which (3) contradicts divine revelation and (4) is taken in such a way so as to oppose the central principle of divine revelation (genuine love).
I’m not sure whether I should number (3) and (4) together, for it is apparent that Jesus regards some contradictions to the letter of the law to be only apparent when one considers the deeper harmony with the spirit of the law. For instance, on the issue of Sabbath rest. (3) and (4) may need to be merged into one principle for Jesus is condemning not a merely factual contradiction of divine revelation but a performative contradiction of the divine law on the order of love.
One who is moderately familiar with Catholic doctrine and theology will see quickly that these charges do not stick to Catholics. First, Catholics present sacred Tradition as revelation; As such, it is divine tradition and not merely human tradition. For this very reason (2) cannot stick, for it is indeed divinely revealed. Now, as divinely revealed no Catholic would admit that authentic tradition could (3) contradict divine revelation. But more to the point, the uninformed Protestant polemic fails because it cannot a priori assume that any tradition contradicts divine revelation, it must rather prove it. It is not a sufficient thing to tarnish a doctrine by labeling it a ‘tradition,’ for in context Jesus is not condemning even all human traditions, but merely human traditions which contradict divine revelation.
For these reasons the common popular treatment of tradition by many Protestants– which is to dismiss it offhand– cannot be an effective tactic. The only successful way to use this biblical text against Catholics would be to prove that Catholic tradition contradicts the Scriptures. But this shifts the debate decisively. There is no longer the presumption of guilt on the part of tradition.
As an interesting note, regarding (4), many Catholic traditions including prayer for the dead, indulgences and prayer to the saints are all essentially connected to divine charity. This is another vindication of Catholic doctrine, for these practices all are supportive of divine charity and are ordered towards it. There is no essential performative inconsistency with these Catholic doctrines for they do not pervert the essential order of charity, but rather they augment it by drawing us into greater union with the dead, the saints and God in charity.
In summary. Jesus does not oppose tradition in general, nor even human tradition in general, but only human tradition which subordinates and contradicts the divine law of love. For this reason, it is very difficult to take this condemnation as binding on Catholicism. If Protestant polemic wishes to be more accurate it should instead focus on showing that the Catholic faith has added to the deposit of faith or has contradicted it. But note how this moves the debate from a misguided attack which is lopsided against Catholicism to a point which is central to any debate between all Christian denominations– namely, the question of who has held most faithfully to the the revelation God entrusted to the apostles and gave to the Church. And on this question I am confident the Catholic position fares quite well.
These thoughts should be helpful when in dialogue with Protestants on the issue of tradition.
Thanks for sharing this. Protestants still throw this unChristian ‘traditional’ accusation around, especially former Catholics. Yet they don’t realize they’ve created their own human tradition that contradicts divine revelation and the Bible.
Tito Edwards,
And what I find difficult, often, while in dialogue with my Protestant brethren is their inability to consider their interpretation of Scripture as a human tradition.
For instance, they will exegete (or rather, eisegete?) a verse, for instance, the death cry of our Lord, as meaning something like an ontological or relational break in the Trinity. When I suggest an interpretation to the contrary they cannot fathom how the meaning of Scripture can be different than their interpretation of Scripture. And so when I give a different interpretation of Scripture than they do they falsely conclude that I am departing from Scripture (when in fact I am only departing from their interpretation of Scripture).
The same thing happens when I offer the interpretation of saints, theologians and Fathers. I will get a response to the effect of, “but I really only want to depend on the Scriptures.” To which I say, “Amen!” But the Fathers and theologians and saints do not offer us something other than the Scriptures, but rather the right interpretation of the Scriptures. And so I want to say, why will you listen to the interpretation of your pastor– for you permit him to give a sermon on the Scriptures– but you will not listen to the interpretation of these eminent and holy men? They are both interpretations of the Scriptures.
In my recent discussion with some of my Protestant friends I tried to make the very point that their reading of Scripture was a human tradition. And I pointedly said that. But I’m not sure most of them are at the point where they are open to such an idea, for they haven’t as of yet made a sharp enough distinction between their interpretation of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture. But once they do so, the conclusion is given.
Robert,
For many Protestants, perhaps the best thing is just for them to have significant interaction with a DIFFERENT Protestant tradition than their own but which they respect. In that regard, when they say “but I am ‘catholic’ ” and give some sort of gnostic description of “The Church” it is useful to then get them to give a concrete answer to “well then, tell me of a congregation and denomination whose members are more or less just as clearly in ‘The Church’ but which is significantly different from your own congregation and denomination.”
If they are able, and willing, to give a specific answer, one can then use that to work on the blindness to tradition.
Thomas,
I think you are right. How does a low-church evangelical/pentecostal/baptist reconcile a relatively higher-church Lutheran belief in the Real Presence with their symbolic view?
I do like the tactic of playing different sola scripturas off of one another, and the colloquy of Marburg is an apt example. Luther and Zwingli could not agree, and Luther regarded Zwingli as damned! Sola Scriptura allows for that sort of disagreement.
Of course, it’s not always relevant to bring that up, except in a Eucharist or sola scriptura conversation.
Sometimes, though, even something like that doesn’t get through.
Perhaps you are right… find similar but different traditions. Usually Calvinism/anti-Calvinism is a pretty strong subject for people.
Good thoughts.
As a Biblical Calvinist, and oft-reader of the church fathers, I quite agree with you in your tradition here. It is a general lack of teaching and gross sectarianism that has created such a mess with the word tradition in many evangelical circles today, particularly in America. As an aside, I am glad the Roman church has not backed down on woman’s ordination nor homosexuality. Liberalism in the Anglican pseudo-communion is rapidly becoming the new religion, just as J. Gresham Machen rightly observed it would. I am thankful for God’s grace working in the Roman church to the shame of the Anglicans.
I love much of your writing here, and encourage you to continue to challenge our Protestant evangelical brothers, who do not understand tradition at all. I definitely agree that every reader has a ‘tradition’ both of interpretation and of practice, and every church has a ‘Tradition’ as well, even if it was just founded a week ago. Similarly every church has a liturgy, and so does every Christian, even though I know quite a few evangelical Christians who would hate to use the word and have a very wrong-headed idea of it. I have had a good chuckle before over hearing a pastor emphasize how their church had no liturgy – and a bit gleefully, I confess, asked a question which made it quite clear that I thought that WAS their liturgy. One thing to quickly point out – if you ever read John Calvin’s Institutes, you will find a very strong and broad understanding of tradition within mother Church.
I am curious to know, though, how you stay consistent with your cogent explanation of Christ’s teaching on human tradition in practice. I think you recognize this. We’re definitely in agreement on everything you said in your post, except where you claim that you think the Roman church stands up quite well to the criticism of who has added or subtracted from the Gospel. (I avoid deposit of faith because that is often misconstrued) In fact, overall, you sound to me to be very close to the Protestant faith. Your interpretation of Jesus’ teaching is right on. And you’ve rightly identified the places where your position is open to attack. And there is where I wish to do a bit of attacking.
You say ‘Anyone moderately familiar… will see these charges do not stick to Catholics.” But I, as a Reformed Protestant Christian, reading the church fathers and conscious of the ties and traditions of history, both individual and corporate, see a clear development in the very doctrine you assume to have such strong defenses – namely the presentation of ‘sacred tradition’ as divine revelation. That is precisely the point where the Reformers, and too the Church Fathers, attack such doctrines as indulgences, pray for the dead, the real, though unbloody, sacrifice of the Mass, etc. The historical account does not credit the position that these teachings are divine, reflecting both a development, and in some cases a clear origination (papal infallibility for example) out of circumstances completely ungodly. For one thing, the church fathers clearly do not support them – their polemic disagrees entirely with the typical traditions defended under sacred tradition, especially in how they attack heresy. In their debates, the church fathers regularly reference the teachings of the apostles, which they call traditions, and which they in many places state are ‘Contained’ in the writings of the apostles. In fact, in many places, particularly in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Mattemus, and Augustine, the word tradition is used as a pseudonym for the Epistles of Paul, Peter, etc. The church fathers seemed to have 4 parts of Scripture – the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Tradition. The reflection is clear. Many times I have noted Roman Catholic apologists (not historians, they tend to be more honest with the history and admit the doctrinal developments) will quote church fathers without context. Thus I find Roman Catholics often think the church fathers mean the same as they do when they read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘Body and blood’ in a quote. Jorgens’ ‘Faith of the Early Church Fathers’ comes to mind…
Anyhow, that is exactly how I believe tradition works. Tradition, whatever it is within a particular church, cannot and must not claim as doctrine anything which cannot be soundly established in Scripture. The whole basis of every attack by the church fathers on heresy was ‘Scripture doesn’t say it, and we haven’t interpreted the Scriptures to say it.’ On the contrary, traditions must always be based, checked against, and measured by the clear teaching of Scripture. This is Sola Scriptura, NOT Solo Scriptura. Solo Scriptura means me & my bible, all by myself in a dark corner. Sola Scriptura means Scripture First, Scripture Primary. It never ever meant Scripture Alone. Scripture as ultimate standard, being the very words of the Holy Spirit, as St. Clement wrote. The very words of the Holy Spirit are obviously the most holy teaching imaginable. Nor are they the property of the Church, but rather the Church is owned by the Scriptures. After all, Christ is the Word, and the Church is His. A deposit of faith makes it sound like Scripture is the Church’s property, something the Church wrote and collected together. The Word of God avoids all temptations to make it yours, and instead keeps it reverenced and honored as our standard of faith and practice, as it should be.
Apologies for the length by the way. Just one more thought – it appears to me that your defense of the Roman traditions is identical to what the Pharisees used to defend their traditions. You write ‘This is another vindication of Catholic doctrine, for these practices all are supportive of divine charity and are ordered towards it.’ My question is, isn’t that exactly the same structure and shape of the arguments the Pharisees used to defend their hedges around the Sabbath law? They would have said ‘These practices are supportive of the divine commandment against breaking the Sabbath and are ordered towards it.’ Where is the substantive difference in these two positions? The Reformers accused the Roman church of being Pharisees with the Gospel – adding traditions that built hedges and barriers, all in the name of honoring the Gospel.
May God bless you this coming Lord’s day with rest and joy!
Joshua
p.s. I include my church’s website, in case you want to know where I’m from. But I’m obviously not writing on behalf of my local congregation in any way.
Joshua,
Thank you for your well thought and engaging response. I have great respect for the traditional Reformation churches. While I disagree with them, it is clear that people like yourself possess a far more powerful and coherent view of the Christian faith than many of the evangelical upstarts who really have no idea of anything that came before them. Not so with people like Calvin. Although I do think that he ultimately perverted the faith, I cannot say that he was ignorant, for instance, that to deny Mary as the Mother of God was equivalent to Nestorianism, or that he wouldn’t read the Fathers for insight. As such, it’s a richer and fuller debate when one comes up against a Calvinist such as yourself. You simply take much more into consideration.
I’m going to take a little bit more time and think over your comment. I’m going to try to have a post ready by tomorrow in response to you. Thanks for taking care to comment here and God bless you too.
-Rob
Sorry Joshua, please give me one more day to compose a response.
-Rob
Ok, Rob. I look forward to your reply. :) It really can be quite embarassing to hear the ‘evangelical upstarts’. One particular thorn in the reformed side right now is the Emergent Church movement – I’m sure you’re familiar with it. It’s near blasphemous, the things they claim about God. Anyhow, God bless your reply.
Joshua
[...] and Scripture On my last post, on Our Lord and the Principle of Tradition, commenter Joshua responded from the perspective of Calvinist Christianity. I will now take some [...]
[...] Our Lord and the Principle of Tradition. 2. Tradition and Scripture. 3. Material Sufficiency, Tradition and the Fathers with Yves Congar [...]
[...] Our Lord and the Principle of Tradition. 2. Tradition and Scripture. 3. Material Sufficiency, Tradition and the Fathers with Yves Congar [...]