The Roman Catholic Church And Apostolic (Or "Sacred") Tradition

• Preliminary Points:

          -The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture alone is an insufficient guide for Christian doctrine, that Jesus Christ gave the twelve apostles infallible oral tradition to pass on to future clergy members through the Magisterium to be taught to attendees in the pews. It is claimed that we need to submit to an infallible interpreter of Scripture in order to correctly understand the text, preserving unity in the truth as Christ intended for His church. Defenders of Rome have attempted to build a biblical case for their position by citing passages such as John 20:30, 21:25, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13.

          -It is true that the Bible never presents itself as the only authority in the church. However, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of authority in all religious matters. The focus here shifts from whether authorities exist outside the Bible to giving it due recognition for what it is. It is the only infallible rule of faith for us to use. Therefore, people who object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by using a faulty definition (i.e. that the Bible is the only or sole authority) are attacking a straw man argument.
          -It is self-contradictory for Roman Catholic apologists to appeal to the Bible as the ultimate standard of authority to prove that it is not the ultimate standard of authority for the church to utilize (i.e. not a reflection of the contents of their beliefs, but what takes place in practice). It is hypocritical for Roman Catholics to use Scripture as a means to justify their doctrines, but disapproving of Protestants acting in the same manner. By appealing to Scripture, defenders of Rome hurt their own cause. The implication of them doing so is that we can indeed correctly interpret Scripture without reference to an infallible teaching authority. 

          -"Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." (James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72)

          -"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood and because the Bible does not include everything God taught." (William James Cogan, A Brief Catechism for Adults: A Complete Handbook on How to Be a Good Catholic, Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church, Q&A #1)

• General Considerations On Church Tradition: 

          -It needs to be understood that Protestantism is not categorically opposed to tradition. An example of this would be the observance of Christmas and Easter by various churches. The caveat to be offered in this framework is that such things must be consistent with the principles of Scripture. Even the testimony of the church (meaning patristic writers) is not something to be shunned. For example, from what other sources can gather historical information? Further, the New Testament itself is apostolic tradition in written form, so how can tradition be an inherently bad thing?

          -Even if something like the resurrection of Jesus was passed on to other first century believers in the form of oral tradition, that does not mean it was passed down to us in the same way because we have Scripture. The point made here is that Christ's words carry weight because of who He is, not how His words were transmitted.

• Do John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The passages from the Gospel of John do not say that some the teachings of Jesus were not written in Scripture. Rather, all the miracles that He performed were not recorded. Scripture tells us everything that we need to know concerning salvation (John 20:31).
          -The logic employed by our critics here is self-defeating because Roman Catholic tradition does not furnish us with all the details of Jesus' life.
          -Why assume that 2 John 12 and 3 John 13 are referring to some apostolic teaching that gets passed on to posterity? None of these texts indicate specifically what the contents of John's message are. It is equally possible for the unknown details to be from other parts of the New Testament, a public rebuke of sin or heresy, or even personal details about his life or close companions such as his fellow ministers, the apostles.
          -2 John 12 and 3 John 13 simply indicate that the Apostle John decided not to write down every single detail of what he intended on saying in his epistles. He wanted to speak directly to his audience for the sake of its comfort, joy, and edification. How do we know that what John spoke of would have been different in substance than what is found in written revelation? Can Roman Catholics produce any sayings of Jesus Christ or the apostles that exist apart from Scripture?

• Does 1 Corinthians 11:2 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The immediate context of this passage concerns the purposes of men and women in worship and in terms authority (v. 3-16). Then, the Apostle Paul goes on to address the proper observance of the Lord's Supper (v. 17-31). Later on, he goes on to identify traditions, which he himself previously received, as the basic message of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). None of these traditions can be said to be foreign in substance to the teaching of Scripture.

• Do 2 Thessalonians 2:15 And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?:

          -The prior context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reveals that the Apostle Paul is speaking of traditions pertaining to the second coming of Christ. Those should be measured against apostates who pervert the truths concerning that doctrine, eternal salvation, and the gospel. These topics are addressed in elsewhere in Scripture (Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14:1-9; Matthew 24:5-27; Psalm 22-23; Isaiah 53). Hence, there is no need to rely on extra-biblical oral tradition for such teachings.

          -2 Thessalonians 2:15 highlights the need to stand firm and uphold the teachings received from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, whether by word or letter. Now that they are no longer with us, we are left with their writings as the standard. This aligns with Ephesians 3:1-5, which explains that the apostles and prophets revealed God's truth through the Holy Spirit.
          -2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to teaching regarding working and not being idle, which can also be found in texts such as Psalm 128:2, Proverbs 21:25, and 2 Thessalonians 3:10. There is no reason to assume any need for reliance upon tradition found outside the Bible. Paul demonstrates that his message is consistent, regardless of the form in which it is given.

• Are The Traditions Of The Roman Catholic Church Equal To The Bible In Terms Of Authority?:

          -Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for placing their own traditions on par with the Old Testament in terms of authority (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). This scenario is a mirror reflection of the modern-day Roman Catholic Church because it teaches as God-given truth its own oral traditions. It claims that its traditions were handed down to us from the early church fathers, just as the religious leaders whom Christ scolded claimed that their traditions were passed on to them from the elders. The Roman Catholic Church, like the scribes and Pharisees of the Law, say that their traditions are of divine origin. The scribes and Pharisees taught doctrinal error as a result of putting man-made tradition on the same level of authority as Scripture. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into the same grievous error for its inflated perspective of oral tradition. It has gone a step even further than those Christ scolded by claiming for itself perpetual teaching infallibility.