                   |
Can Catholicism's View that
Church Tradition is Just as Authoritative as Scripture be Sustained
from the Bible?
The Validity of Catholic Church
Tradition as spelled out in her own documents.
In paragraph 78 of its Catechism, here is what the Catholic Church spells out about the validity and authority of Church Tradition in addition to Scripture: This
living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called
Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely
connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life
and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she
herself is, all that she believes."37 "The
sayings of the holy Fathers
are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing
how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church,
in her belief and her prayer.
Notice how this broad view of "tradition" goes beyond mere documents written by approved Catholics. It includes "her doctrine," but it also includes her "life." It "perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is" (emphasis mine), as well as "all that she believes." Again, it states that the "riches" of Catholic tradition "are poured out in the practice and life of the church" (emphasis mine). We conclude then, that anything that occurs under the auspices of the Catholic Church is authoritative tradition. So let us examine, from a Biblical perspective, things that have happened in the tradition of the "Catholic Church," and let us evaluate the events and practices from a Biblical perspective. Will they pass the test of Scripture? What about Church Tradition found in the New Testament?
What about Peter's engineering of a replacement apostle for Judas?
After Christ's departure into heaven (Acts 1:9-11), Peter took it upon himself to engineer a replacement apostle for Judas (Acts 1:15-26). He outlined the Scriptures which, he said, must necessarily be fulfilled. These Scriptures included Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. They are combined in Acts 1:20. Peter then proceeded to outline the prerequisites of the man that must be chosen to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:21-22). Those assembled (Acts 1:15, 23) put forward two men, Barsabbas and Matthias (Acts 1:23). Then they prayed and asked the Lord to show His will (Acts 1:24-25). They drew lots, the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles (Acts 1:26). Now according to the Catholic belief system, this is Church Tradition, which, therefore, has to be valid. From my point of view, it is church tradition which is recorded in Scripture, and therefore has infinitely more value than extra-biblical church tradition. But even granting the latter point, it is my personal belief that Peter was out of order. I agree with him that someone had to take the place of Judas. But I find no record in Acts that Christ ordered Peter to engineer the selection of Matthias. I don't think the Church picks out Apostles. That is not the Church's prerogative. Only Christ can pick out Apostles, at least on the order of the Twelve Apostles. I am convinced, moreover, that Christ did not pick out Matthias. We never hear of him again! I believe Peter was correct in interpreting those two Psalms passages as referring to the need for a replacement Apostle. However, I think he went beyond his authority in engineering the replacement. That was Jesus' prerogative, not Peter's. Whom then, did Christ pick out to be the Twelfth Apostle? I think we all know his name. It was Saul, who later was named Paul. Christ personally picked out Saul when he was on his way to Damascus to imprison Christians and have them tried in Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). As Saul was traveling, a bright light flashed around him and knocked him to the ground. He heard a voice asking him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:3-4). Saul replied, already indicating his submission, "Who are you, Lord?" (Acts 9:5). To which the Lord replied, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. Get up and enter the city and await further instructions" (Acts 9:5-6, my paraphrase). The Lord instructed Ananias to relay a message to Saul. Jesus instructed Ananias, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake" (Acts 9:15-16). This is the one Christ chose to be His twelfth Apostle. Matthias was not his choice. Saul was. The results speak for themselves. Saul, later known as Paul, became the fledgling Church's greatest missionary. Moreover he wrote thirteen letters than are part of the New Testament. My point here is that, just because the Church does something, that does not necessarily carry authoritative weight. Even Church tradition inside Scripture must be evaluated by Scripture. Peter's engineering of a replacement Apostle, though well-meaning, turned out to be futile. There are twelve names of the Apostles that will be inscribed on the Twelve Foundations of New Jerusalem. I am willing to wager a thousand New Jerusalem Israeli shekels to any taker that the twelve names will include the name of Saul (Paul) and not the name of Matthias. Any takers?
What about the Church Council in Acts 22 and how it affected the
Apostle Paul? What about the Church's torturing and murdering "heretics"? What about Investiture? What about the practice of Popes interfering in civil governments? What about the Council of Constance? The Catholic Encyclopedia's
article on the Council
of Constance.
What about the Avignon Papacy? What about the Crusades? Under the authority of what Scripture can the Catholic Church justify its Popes authorizing wars against Muslims and Jews to recapture the Holy Land? Here is a paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia from an entry entitled, Crusades, explaining the Crusades. The idea of
the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized
in Christendom only from the eleventh to the
fifteenth
century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the
direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by
preaching.
After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received
a cross from the hands of the pope or
his legates,
and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church.
Crusaders
were also granted indulgences and temporal
privileges, such
as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or
lands, etc.
What about the Vatican as a civil, political entity, complete with international diplomatic representation? Article begun on December 30, 2017. Updated on July 31, 2019 Article in Progress Background and Button Image Credit |
|||
