Can the same things be said about tradition? Is it pure, perfect, inerrant, or infallible? If it is not, then the claim that tradition is equal to the word of God is false. The answer is NO...Jesus used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition in several instances. In Matt.15:1-9 for instance, Jesus answers the Pharisees and scribes who complained that the disciples were transgressing the tradition of the elders:

"...Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN." (Emphasis mine)

I believe it is revelant that Jesus never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority, but quite the contrary, he always corrected tradition with Scripture. Should we not imitate our Lord and Savior, who set before us His standard? And as we can see from the above Scripture, tradition is not inerrent, infallible and it definitely is not settled in heaven since Jesus rebuked it. Colossians 2:8 warns us to beware of "traditions of men". Is it pure? Again, the answer is NO! By Rome's own admission, their basic documents are forgeries (Isidorian Decretals, Cyrian Decretals, Gratians Decretum, Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Donation of Constantine, etc.). Therefore the tradition that was passed down was polluted, again leaving it unequal with the Word of God which is pure.

The Word of God sets men free (Jn.8:31-32), but does Tradition? According to The Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, #85:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." Pope Pius' letter, , states:

"...God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation NOT TO EACH OF THE FAITHFUL, NOT EVEN TO THEOLOGIANS, BUT ONLY TO THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH." (Emphasis mine)

I hope you hear that Sungenis, Madrid, Fournier, etc., you cannot interpret Scripture! As your leaders so clearly put it, "The Scripture indeed is a divine book but it is a dead letter, which has to be explained, and cannot exercise the action which the preacher can obtain" (Our Priesthood, 155). And again, "A dead and speechless book" (Question Box, 67). But for us who know the Lord, the Word of God is living, as Heb.4:12 aptly describes:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Tradition does not make men free, it makes them prisoners. If we desire to seek God through His Word, we are told by Rome that we cannot interpret. We must go through man to get to God thus effectively chaining souls to Catholicism. Why would God tell man to

"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them"?

(Isa.34:16) If we can't interpret the Bible, then why would we read it? God said “Come let us reason together....” (Isa.1:18) And, "Study to show thyself approved" affirming again that God is pleased with men when they study His Word. Although the Catholic church has lifted her ban on reading the Bible, she has not lifted her ban on interpreting it. So afraid that the Catholic lay people would hear the gospel, unadulterated, they issued warnings about talking with Protestants.

“The devout, sincere Roman Catholic, priest or laymen...must not even carry on a conversation with a Protestant about religious matters unless his priest is also present. Even among the priests many would not dare to read a heretical book, or carry on such a conversation without permission from a bishop” (Roman Catholicism, Boettner, 419).

“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, Stapleton, 35).

In case you should run into a "church father" who agrees with "sola Scriptura", the Church of Rome has taken the precaution of protecting its private interpretation by forbidding anyone else to interpret it. In The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens comments:

"...we must stress that an isolated patristic text is in no instance to be regarded as a 'proof' of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not 'proved' by patristic statements but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church."

The Second Vatican Council states:

"[The Catholic church] has always regarded, and continues to regard the Scriptures, taken together with sacred Tradition, as the supreme ruler of her faith."

This statement is quite misleading. A closer look at the early church reveals a different story. Irenaeus (140-202 A.D.) tells us:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith....let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God" (The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Roberts and Rambaut, 258,266).

Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) stated that "The Scriptures...indeed furnish us with our rule of faith." Hippolytus (d.235 A.D.) says:

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from NO OTHER SOURCE. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.V, Roberts and Donaldson, 227). (Emphasis mine)

Clement of Alexandria (150-211/216 A.D.) agreed with Hippolytus when he said that those who are ready to search after truth should not desist until "they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." Cyprian (200/210-285 A.D.) taught:

"Be there no innovation beyond what has been handed down to us...that which we should observe commanded in the gospel, or...contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles."

Origen (185-253A.D.) said:

"In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing. For all gold which was outside of the temple was not sanctified, so every sense which is outside of the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not sacred because it is not limited by the sense of Scripture. Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, Vol.II, 550-551).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.), concerning the divine and sacred mysteries of the faith, said:

"We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if any thing be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spake the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; FOR WHATSOEVER HE HAS NOT SAID, WE DARE NOT SAY" (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril,42, 203-204). (Emphasis mine)

Chrysostom (344/345-407 A.D.) expressed a very "sola Scriptura" attitude:

"These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. ..All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...For doctrine. For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if any thing is deficient, we may have it added to us. That the man of God may be perfect. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it: without this there fore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!" (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, 2 Timothy, Homily 9, 250)

Hillary of Poitiers (315-367/368 A.D.) even goes so far as to issue an anathema to anyone "who teaches contrary to the wholesome and right faith of the Scriptures." Eusebius (263-340 A.D.) most humbly admits, "...and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." But it was Augustine who spelled out "sola Scriptura" most clearly:

"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For HOLY SCRIPTURE FIXES THE RULE FOR OUR DOCTRINE, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher" (An Examination of the Council of Trent, Chemnitz, Vol.1, 152). (Emphasis mine)

It is obvious from the above quotes that at least some of Rome's church fathers trusted the Scriptures and nothing else! We have quoted them at length so that it can’t be said we took them out of context. How can she claim unanimous support from the “fathers”? Why then did the Roman Catholic church change the teaching of her own "church fathers" to start trusting in tradition that is unreliable?

Let's look at Rome's opinion of her own traditions:

“Forgery quite a trade with Catholics” (Cath. Ency., VII, 136; V, 780; XII, 768; XIV, 378.

“Spurious” (Catholic Dictionary, 43, 522; Catholic Ency., VII, 644, 645; IX, 234-5; XV, 485).

“Fraud” (De Montor, I, 197).

“Legal fiction” (Inquisition, 128-130).

“Fable” (Short History, 82; Cath. Ency., VII, 539).

“Ficticious” (Cath. Ency., I, 636).

“False” (Catholic Dictionary, 105).

“Highly debatable” (Cath. Ency., IX, 743.

“Unlikely tale...myth...not authetic...Fable...not history” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, 115-116).

“Exaggeration”, (Question Box, 520, 521).

“Pure works of imagination...pious fancy...editorial manipulations...unreliable” (Cath. Ency., IX, 743).

“Historically untenable” (Cath. Ency., IX, 224).

“Falsely attributed” (Cath. Ency, XIV, 666).

“Full of errors” (Cath. Ency., IX, 224).

“Doubtful Value” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 131).

“Whitewash” (Question Box, 176; Catholic World, Oct. 1925).

“Unauthentic” (Cath. Ency., IX, 225; De Montor, I, 36).

“Utterly False” (Cath. Dict., 338).

“Far-fetched...superstition” (Lives And Times Of The Roman Pontiffs, I, 197).

“Legend” (Cath. Dict., 9).

“Quasi-historical testimonies” (Cath. Ency., VII, 326, 341, 342).

“Manipulations...Purports to be” (Cath. Ency., I, 36).

“Compiler Supposes” (Cath. Ency, I, 72).

“Substituting False Documents” (Cath. Ency., VI, 136).

“Tampering with Genuine Ones” (Cath. Ency., VI, 136).

“Very Good Poetry, Very Poor History”(Catholic World, Oct. 1925).

“Pretended to be” (Cath. Dict., 41, 42).

“Little or no historical value” (Cath. Dict., 9-10).

It's evident that Rome does not trust her own tradition, yet she teaches her people to trust in them as though they were equal to the word of God. How hypocritical!

In the Old Testament, it was the "fathers" that led their people into sin. Jer.16:19 says, "...Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." There was a king named Josiah, who, after reading the Word of God, recognized that the "fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us." He gathered all the people, great and small and "...read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD." When the people heard the words, a revival took place and all the idolatrous images were beaten into ashes and cast into the brook Kidron. (2 Kings 22-23) It would be exciting to see such a revival in the Catholic church, but it will not happen until they allow the Lord to circumcise their hearts. (Deut. 30:6)

Paul said "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (I Cor.15:3-4) The gospel that Paul and the apostles preached is not of man (Gal.1:11), but it is that which "...he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures" (Rom.1:2) and "...now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God...." (16:26)

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (I Pet.1:18-19)

God does not want us tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph.4:14), He wants us rooted in His Word as Peter says,

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet.1:19-21, 2:1)

Eph.6:17 only mentions one weapon, not two! And that weapon is the sword, the Word of God. In your other hand you should have the shield of faith. That leaves no hands to hold on to tradition.

by Rebecca A. Sexton