Victor R. Claveau, MJ
Most of the Traditions have come to us through the writings of the Fathers.[1] The Fathers were in every century the foremost exponents of Christian doctrine. They were the lights of Christianity in the catacombs; in the great convulsions, that submerged and changed the old civilizations of Europe, Asia and Africa; in the social and national birth of so many nations after the break-up of the Roman Empire. They were, above all, the bulwark of Christian truth in all the religious upheavals that rent-how many times and in how many places-the beautiful mantle of the Spouse of Jesus Christ.
They had to contend with all kinds of difficulties. All the powers of hell were arraigned against the Church. All kinds of enemies arose in the bosom of Christianity itself. But God in His Wisdom was with His Church in her days of trial. Errors arose, and may arise, but, thanks be to God, we can say with certainty that all past, present, and to come, have been valiantly combated and refuted by the Fathers of the Church. They had many times to accept battle on the enemy’s ground and use his own weapons to defend the truth.
Since their writings furnish the most eloquent testimonies on Tradition, it will not be out of place to set forth their teaching. They distinguish Tradition from the 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. They 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 call “Tradition,” Dominical, or Apostolic. Thus, St. Basil (330-379 A. D.), in his work “On the Holy Spirit,” writes:
“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.”[2]
In the second place, the Fathers speak of Tradition as a separate means of information, propagation, and conservation of the truth, regardless of the Scriptures. St. Basil, after having testified that some dogmas came to us through the Scriptures and others from the Tradition of the Apostles further declares:
“…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.”[5]
Irenæus writes that we would still be able to follow the teachings of the Divine Master even if a line of Scripture had not been written.
“What then, if the Apostles did not even leave us the Scriptures? Would it not have been necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which they left to those, to whom they entrusted the Churches? To such order of things adapt themselves many illiterate peoples, who without paper or ink believe in Christ, but have written in their hearts, through the Holy Ghost, what belongs to salvation, and diligently ‘keep the old traditions,’ believing in one God, Creator of heaven and earth”; and after reciting the Apostles’ Creed, he continues “these peoples, who believed without any writings, as far as our language is concerned, are foreign to our tongue; while in what regards the Faith, in its construction and custom and conversation, they are very learned indeed, and they please God, serving Him in all justice and chastity and wisdom. If any one relates to them, even in their own tongue, what heretics have devised, they will at once shut their ears and flee from him, not to hear such blasphemous talking. Thus, through that ‘ancient tradition of the Apostles,’ they do not even want for one moment to entertain in their mind what such persons have to say.”[6]
Note that Irenæus, writing in the Second Century, is speaking of peoples, who could not even read or write. They had nothing to direct them on the road to salvation but the ancient traditions: the preaching and practices of the Church. Preaching is not reading. Preaching came to them not through the Scriptures, but by hearing the word of God, preached to them by the priests of the Church, as the Apostle says: “Fides ex auditu” “Faith comes by hearing.”[7]
St. Vincent of Lérins ( ? ante A. D. 450) states that the Catholic Church is a necessary requisite for proper interpretation of the Scriptures:
“But here some one 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.”[8]
It is evident, then, that the Fathers of the Church suppose and declare that besides the Scriptures, the written word of God, there is also the unwritten word of God, as another source of information, totally distinct from the Scriptures. This is Tradition, a source of information or revelation, distinct from the Scriptures.
- [1] Note: The title “Father” refers to the writers and bishops of the early Christian centuries who either had direct contact with the Apostles or were among the martyrs and major figures in the early Church.
- [2] John R. Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers, S.J. ed., (New York: Herder and Herder, 1966) p. 117.
- [3] The Crown, or De Corona, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, L.L.D., eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), p. 95.
- [4] “On Baptism”, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens, William A., ed., (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1970) Vol. 1, p. 95.
- [5] Ibid., pp. 117-118
- [6] Ibid. P. 91.
- [7] Rom.10:17.
- [8] The Teachings of the Church Fathers, p. 119-120.