Victor R. Claveau, MJ
Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers
The Fathers of the Church suppose and declare that besides the Scriptures — the written word of God — there also is the unwritten word of God as another source of information, totally distinct from the Scriptures. This is Sacred Tradition.
Most of what Catholics call Sacred Tradition has been handed down to us through the writings of the Church Fathers. The Fathers were in every century the foremost exponents of Christian doctrine. They were the brilliant lights of Christianity in the catacombs; in the great convulsions that submerged and changed the old civilizations of Europe, Asia, and Africa; and in the social and national birth of so many nations after the break-up of the Roman Empire. They were, above all, the bulwarks of Christian truth in all the religious upheavals that threatened to tear the Catholic Church apart. The Fathers were the defenders of Christianity long before the Bible came into existence.
There has never been a time in history when Satan has not been on the attack. During the first few centuries of the Church’s existence, the Fathers had to contend with one heresy after another. It seemed that all the powers of hell were arrayed against them. Enemies arose and errors were taught in the bosom of Christianity itself.
As these errors arose, they were combated valiantly and refuted by the Fathers of the Church. Many times they had to accept battle on the enemy’s ground, with truth as their only weapon. God in his Wisdom was with his Church in her days of trial.
Because the writings of the Fathers of the Church furnish the most eloquent testimonies on Tradition, it is not out of place to set forth their teaching. They distinguish Sacred Tradition from the Sacred Scriptures as two distinct objects, one completed by the other. Scripture and Tradition appear in their writings like two different hands, both holding fast the deposit of Revelation. They are two streams with a common origin that flow over separate ground, but both lead to and form the same Revelation.
What they received from the elders, but did not find in the Scriptures, the Fathers called Apostolic or Dominical Traditions. Apostolic Traditions are the Traditions received from the Apostles, such as the baptism of infants. Dominical Traditions are the Traditions that were associated with our Lord, such as the Lord’s Supper or the Our Father prayer. Thus, St. Basil (AD 330-379), in his work On the Holy Spirit, wrote:
“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles.”
In addition, the Fathers speak of Tradition as a separate means of information, propagation and conservation of the truth, regardless of the Scriptures. St. Basil of Caesarea, also called Basil the Great (c. 329? – 379), after having testified that some dogmas came to us through the Scriptures and others from the Tradition of the Apostles, further declared that much has been derived from unwritten teaching:
“… and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters especially, or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. … Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the Catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? … In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited [rumored] abroad at random among the common folk is not mystery at all.”[1]
St. Vincent of Lérins (before AD 450), ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century, stated the canon of Scripture is complete and the Catholic Church is a necessary requisite for proper interpretation of the Scriptures:
“But here someone perhaps will ask, since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another. … Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.” [2]
The Keys of the Kingdom
In establishing His religion, Christ said to Peter: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19).
When Jesus used the term keys of the kingdom, he was quoting an extremely well-known verse from Isaiah, where the prophet is speaking to Shebna, household overseer of Hezekiah the king who had been proven unworthy to remain in office.
“Thus says the Lord God of hosts” … “I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut; and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house” (Isaiah. 22:19-23).
The House of David is a reference to the eternal dynasty prophesied to David by the oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam. 7:8-13.
King David lived from BC 1000 to 961, and King Hezekiah lived from BC 715 to 687. Isaiah obviously was writing quite some time after the death of King David. By the time of Isaiah, the office of Master of the Palace was almost 300 years old and fully established as the highest office in the royal administration.
Isaiah is writing about an office that necessitated dynastic succession and authority.
The symbols of dynastic authority are being bestowed upon Eliakim, who was a cabinet minister under the corrupt Shebna:
The office of “Master of the Palace” or “Prime Minister”;
a robe and a sash with the symbol of a key on the shoulder;
a throne;
the royal keys of the House of David.
At the time, Hezekiah was King of Israel. Because he was of the lineage of David, he was recognized as the son of David and ruler over the House of David. Kings of the ancient world had cabinet officers or royal ministers, just as the presidents of the United States or the Queen of England have cabinet officers.
Shebna, who had proven to be unworthy, was the Prime Minister of King Hezekiah. The prideful Shebna had been presumptuously constructing an elaborate tomb for himself in the mountains. When Shebna was expelled, it left the office vacant.
In addition to the dynastic succession to the office of king, there was a dynastic succession to the office of prime minister. With the expulsion of Shebna, the office had to be filled, and Eliakim, a minister in the cabinet, was chosen.
The keys of the kingdom signify dynastic authority and dynastic succession.
Why? Because it’s the key of David. The Prime Minister was responsible for the security of the kingdom. It was he who decided who could enter and who could leave the city. In the absence or incapacitation of the king, it was the Prime Minister who made the important decisions.
Jesus knew he was to be put to death and chose Peter to carry on as His Prime Minister. This was to be a visible, teaching Church, “the barque of Peter” with the chief of the Apostles at the helm. We know that Peter understood Jesus because of his reaction. He knew that Jesus was in fact making him His Prime Minister and he did not believe he was qualified. He soon learned that “Jesus does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called”.
This Church had a definite doctrine and external ritual. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt 28:19-20).
A teaching church is a visible church. A church, which administers baptism, is a church with an external ritual. Consequently, I ask what visible church existing today has a teaching ministry and external rites, which go back to the very persons of Peter and Jesus Christ. There is only one, the Catholic Church, whose head is the Pope, the successor of Peter and the representative of Christ. No Christian denomination dates its origin from apostolic times.
Calvinists began with John Calvin; Lutherans began with Martin Luther; Episcopalians with Henry VIII; Mormons with Joseph Smith, etc., and so on.
You may say, the Protestant “Church” is the Church of Jesus Christ, but reformed of error. Unfortunately, this reformed “church” dates from 1517, not the first century. You must choose between Luther and Christ. Jesus said His Church would never teach error; Luther says it did. If Luther is right, Christ is wrong; but if Christ is right, Luther and all his followers are wrong.
The best way to proceed is to get right down to incontrovertible proof.
Is Jesus Christ God?
Is Jesus Christ God? Yes, or no? If no, there is no use proceeding, as the whole Christian platform falls and all Christianity is an imposition — a fraud. If He was God, He is divine Truth, and all that He says and promises is true.
Did He establish a visible church? Yes, or no? If He did not, there is no use looking for it; if He did, then it is somewhere in the world today, for He declared it was to last until the end of the world. “Behold I am with you all days…” “On this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18) (Emphasis mine).
Did He guarantee His Church against error? Yes or no? If not, we would never know what must be believed. The Church would not be a true guide; it cannot represent Him. If He did guarantee it against error, then it never has erred, for God’s guarantee is indeed security. He said, “The gates of hell would not prevail against His Church” (Matt. 16:18).
How then, about the reformers? They were wrong, either they, or Christ. But how about the state of the Church at various periods? Shocking, absolutely shocking! No one observed it more or wept for her more than the children of the Church. They were at times almost ashamed of the Church leadership; they labored and prayed for their betterment. Some of the greatest saints devoted their lives to remedying matters, but they never thought of denying the Church.
If God saw fit to allow His Spouse to be at times weak and deplorable, it was to try the faith of His children and to show the vitality of their Mother. Ifthe Church always stood forth plainly divine, there would be no astonishment at our faith in her, but to see in her the Spouse of Christ at all times because He declared that she was, that is indeed faith. The Catholic Church is divine, Catholics, on the other hand are sinners.
The Church has justified this faith. Ifshe were not divine, she would have perished a hundred times. But look at her now, even our critics recognize that the Catholic Church is the only Christian body that has not compromised her dogma, or her rigorous moral principles! She has indeed seen fighting. She has been through many battles and at times she was hard fought, but she has come through it all worthy of her Spouse, our divine Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is God, He established one true Church, that Church is the Catholic Church.
[1] St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chap. 27, 66.
[2] Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers, pp. 119-120.