TRADITION AND THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH
The Roman Catholic Church, with the Council of Trent (XVI century) declared that the revelation of God is not only contained in the Bible, but also in the Catholic tradition. Even today, tradition is the foundation of much of the theology and practices of the Roman church.
| Catholic church | New Testament |
| «The Christian economy, insofar as it is a new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and no new public revelation is to be expected ... However, even if the Revelation is complete, it is not completely explicit; it will be up to the Christian faith to gradually grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries "(CCC, quoting Vatican Council II). | "Because we do not write other things to you, except those that you can read or understand ... In reading this, you can understand what my understanding of the mystery of Christ is ... Even if an angel from heaven preaches a Gospel other than what we have announced to you, be cursed "(Paul: 2 Corinthians 1,13; Ephesians 3,4; Galatians 1,8). |
| Catholic church | New Testament |
| The "explanations" subsequent to the New Testament are formulated over the centuries by Tradition, that is, by the "live transmission" (oral and gradually written), which is "distinct from Sacred Scripture, although closely linked to it". Thus God continues to speak to believers and informs them of the whole truth. Tradition and Sacred Scripture "form one thing in a certain way" (CCC, always referring to Vatican II). | "Faith has been transmitted once and for all to the saints" (Jude v. 3). "See that no one makes you his prey with philosophy and with vain deceit, according to the tradition of men and the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Paul: Colossians 2,8). "In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines that are precepts of men ... thus nullifying the Word of God with your tradition, which you have handed down" (Jesus: Mark 7,7-13). |
| Catholic church | New Testament |
| Interpreting and managing Scriptural Revelation and Tradition belongs only to the Magisterium of the Church (ie the bishops in communion with the "holy father", that is, the pontiff): "Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church ... are so closely connected and relatives who cannot independently exist "(CCC; Vatican II). | But do not let yourselves be called teacher, because only one is your teacher: the Christ ... And do not call anyone on earth your father, because only one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Nor let yourselves be called your guide, because only one is your Guide: the Christ "(Jesus: Matthew 23,8-10). |
Since the Roman Catholic tradition is not supported by Holy Scripture, we want to see what some of those ancient writers it calls "church fathers" said they should do about what cannot be confirmed by the Bible, or what it does not do. part of Scripture and contradicts it.
- Justin Martyr (who died in the year 165 after Christ) said: ' We have no commandment of Christ which obliges us to believe in human traditions and doctrines , but only in those which the blessed prophets have promulgated and which Christ himself taught, and I take care to refer everything to the Scriptures and ask them for my arguments and my demonstrations' (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Tryphon);
- Basil (AD 330-379) said: 'To reject anything found in the Scriptures, or to receive some things that are not written, is an obvious sign of infidelity , an act of pride ... the faithful one must believe fully of spirit all the things that are in the Scriptures without removing or adding anything ' (Basilio, Lib. de Fid. - regul. moral. reg. 80);
- Ambrose (340 ca. - 397) said: 'Who will dare to speak when the Scripture is silent? ... We must add nothing to God's command; if you add or remove anything you are guilty of prevarication ' (Ambrose, Lib. II de vocat. Gent. ch. 3 et lib. de parad. ch. 2).
- Jerome (c. 347 - c. 419-20) said: 'If you want to clarify things in doubt, go to the law and the testimony of Scripture; out of there you are in the night of error. We admit all that is written, we reject all that is not. Things that are invented under the name of apostolic tradition without the authority of Scripture are struck by the sword of God ' (Jerome, In Isaiam, VII; In Agg., I; quoted by Roberto Nisbet in op.cit., P. 28).
- Cyprian (c. 200 - 258) said: ' What pride and what presumption it is to equate human traditions with divine ordinances ...!' (Cyprian, Epist. 71);
- Tertullian (c.160 - c.220) said: 'Show us the school of Hermogenes that what it teaches is written: if it is not written, tremble in view of the thunderstruck anathema against those who add to Scripture, or take away from it. anything ' (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chap. 22).
Reading these statements it is deduced that the same writers that the Roman Catholic Church takes to support its doctrines, were against all those doctrines and practices that could not be proved with the Scriptures and that were passed off as apostolic tradition.
Therefore the Roman Catholic Church does not completely stick to what the "fathers" said, and does not reject everything that is not written in the Holy Scriptures. On the one hand, it says that the Scriptures must be interpreted by means of the fathers, and on the other, it affirms that it is necessary to accept traditions in the same way that Scripture is accepted (the Second Vatican Council in fact declared that Scripture and tradition "must be accepted and venerated with equal sentiment of piety and respect "[Vatican Council II, Sess. VIII, chap. II]), which, as we have seen, is openly against the consent of the fathers.
Notes :
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and keep the traditions that you have learned from our word as well as from our letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
The Catholic Church teaches that the traditions to which this verse refers are the truths concerning the Christian faith and life, which the apostle Paul would have received from the early Christian Church and which in turn taught the communities.
This seeks to support the Catholic tradition which, according to the Roman curia, is the teaching of the apostles transmitted verbally but not written.
In reality Paul did not receive truths regarding the faith and Christian life from the early Church because he did not learn the Gospel from any man, but received it by the revelation of Jesus Christ, from the day of his encounter on the road to Damascus onwards.
"I certify you, brethren, that the gospel preached by me is not according to man because I myself have not received nor was I taught by a man, but I received it by revelation of Jesus Christ .
In fact you have heard what my conduct was in the past, when I was in Judaism; how I persecuted the church of God to the bitter end, and devastated it; and distinguished myself in Judaism more than many of my peers among my countrymen, because I was extremely zealous in the traditions of my fathers.
But God, who had chosen me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might proclaim him among foreigners. " (Galatians 1: 11-16)
REPLIES TO READERS
Question: Who were Iannè and Jambrè of whom the apostle Paul speaks? Why do Catholics refer to them to justify their tradition?
Iannè and Iambrè (or Iannes and Iambres) were two Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses and of whom the Jewish tradition speaks.
However, the fact that Paul mentions them cannot in any way justify or legitimize the tradition of the Catholic Church, because Paul does not mention them to introduce a practice or doctrine contrary to the teaching of Scripture, but only to make a comparison between these two ancient ones. opponents of the truth and those who contrasted the truth in his day.
In fact, Paul says: " And just as Iannè and Jambrè opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth: men corrupt in mind, reproached as to faith. But they will not go further, because their folly will be manifest to all, as was that of those men "(2 Timothy 3: 8-9).
In other words, Paul cites them to give an example of ancient men who opposed the Word of God.
It must be remembered that Paul was a Jew according to the flesh, and precisely a Pharisee, and he knew these things because he knew the tradition of the fathers. The Jewish tradition, however, contained (and still contains) many precepts of men and even stories that turn their backs on the truth.
In fact, Jesus reproved the scribes and Pharisees precisely because because of their tradition they had annulled the Word of God. Here is what He said to them:"You, having left the commandment of God, remain attached to the tradition of men. And he said to them again: How well you know how to cancel the commandment of God to observe your tradition! Moses in fact said: Honor your father and your mother; and: Who curses father or mother to be punished with death; you, on the other hand, if someone says to his father or mother: The one with whom I could assist you is Corban, (that is, offering to God), you no longer allow him to do anything for the benefit of his father or mother; thus nullifying the word of God with the tradition that you have handed down to you. And you do so many similar things! " (Mark 7: 8-13).
So, pay attention to the tradition, it doesn't matter if it's the Jewish or the Roman Catholic one. Regarding the latter, it cancels Sacred Scripture in many parts, so it cannot be placed on the same level as Scripture as the Roman church would like us to do.
Of course, not everything that the Roman Catholic tradition says is wrong, I have read a lot of the writings of the so-called fathers of the Church and I can say that several things they taught were right, but we must be very careful because often in the midst of the truth there are some lies and superstitions.
The same thing I can tell you about the Jewish tradition, I have read both parts of the Haggadah and the Halakah (the legislative part of the tradition) and I can tell you that there are precepts and stories that confirm the law and the prophets but also many stories and many precepts that cancel it, that is, they contrast both the law and the prophets. There are many, really many Jewish fables. Human precepts that nullify the Word of God equally. However, there are also parables or precepts that confirm both the law and the prophets.
So, when you read the Jewish or Roman Catholic tradition, the attitude to take is this, never think that it is of divine origin, but in any case, if there is any useful information that confirms the Word of God, you can also to accept. But on an informative level and that's it, as the apostle Paul does with Iannè and Jambrè.
By the way, Paul in one of his preaching in Athens even quoted a Greek poet to confirm the Word of God. Here are his words: "In fact, in him we live, we move, and we are, as also some of your poets have said: 'For we are also his offspring.' Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not believe that the Divinity is like gold, silver, or stone carved by human art and imagination. "
You see it? Paul mentions ancient pagan poets; he knew that poetic quotation and considering it to be true, he quoted it on that occasion in which the Greeks were listening to him, and in his speech, to confirm that we are the progeny of God. But this does not mean that Paul accepted everything that the ancients said Greek poets, this is obvious. In short, it is as if I in one of my speeches quoted a passage from the so-called Divine Comedy to confirm something true; this does not mean that I accept everything Dante Alighieri wrote! I know well that that poet believed in purgatory and many other lies.
Other similar examples are the quote from Epimenides in Titus 1:12, or the one from the apocryphal book of Enoch in Jude 14; both sources are not part of Sacred Scripture, and the fact that they are cited does not at all constitute proof of the validity of the "tradition".
So when it comes to tradition, it doesn't matter if it's Jewish or Catholic, you have to keep these things in mind. Stick to God's faithful Word as it is written and you will always have some good.
Question: Catholics claim that the New Testament is also a tradition and therefore traditions must be accepted. What do you think about it?
First of all it must be said that Catholic traditions are not the word of God, but simply the religious interpretation of men. The Catholic tradition contains all these teachings "deduced" over the centuries by the church of Rome.
There is also a consideration to make. In John 21:23 you can read how the thought spread among Jesus' disciples that Peter would never die; yet that verse says that even though the disciples believed that idea, it was based on a misinterpretation of the Lord's words. If this happened among the disciples while Jesus was with them, let alone how many errors and how many erroneous doctrines have been spread through tradition over the span of two thousand years.
This is why early believers held only God's written Word, and refused to accept traditions. We have seen before the statements of people like St. Jerome: "If you want to clarify things in doubt, go to the law and the testimony of Scripture; out of there you are in the night of error. We admit everything that is written, we reject everything. what is not. The things that are invented under the name of apostolic tradition without the authority of Scripture are struck by the sword of God " (Jerome, In Isaiam, VII; In Agg., I).
Another confirmation of the dangers of traditions comes from the fact that Scripture never contradicts itself, while Catholic traditions contradict each other, and very often contradict the words of Sacred Scripture.
How can God say one thing in the Bible and then another thing in Catholic traditions? Like the apostles, we say, "Judge for yourself whether it is right, before God, to obey you rather than God."
The apostle Paul said "do not practice beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4: 6). The Catholic Church does not follow this teaching, and unfortunately it teaches its faithful to do the same.
Several Catholics say it is right to "expand" the words of Scripture; but this means adding or taking away something from God's written teachings, and God has commanded that no one be allowed to do so (see Proverbs 30: 5, Revelation 22: 18-19).
The Catholic Church claims that its doctrines come from the teachings of what it calls "church fathers". Yet in reality the Catholic Church does just the opposite of what the first fathers said. The following are some of their statements, which you can check for yourself.
Tertullian (160 ca. - 220 ca.) was against the primacy of the bishop of Rome supported by the Roman church. Writing to the bishop of Rome who appealed to "you are Peter"'Who are you who subvert and distort the manifest intention of the Lord?' (Tertullian, De pudicitia 21).
Tertullian was also against the perpetual virginity of Mary, in fact he said that Mary did not remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. He was against the doctrine of transubstantiation, and was against the baptism of infants. Tertullian also condemned the use of incense in worship, and the making of statues and religious images: 'The devil has introduced statues and images and all other representations into the world (...) Saying God: you will not make any similarity of the things that are on heaven neither on earth nor in the sea, he has forbidden his servants throughout the world to indulge in the exercise of these arts' (Tertullian, On Idolatry, book 3, IV).
Origen(C. 185 - 254) spoke out against the primacy of Peter: 'If you imagine that the Church was founded only on Peter, what could you say about John, the son of thunder, or about any other apostle? Anyone who makes Peter's confession his own can be called a Peter ' (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 12: 10-11).
Even St. Cyprian (c. 200 - 258) was contrary to the primacy of Peter: 'Jesus spoke to Peter, not because he attributed a special authority to him , but only because by revealing himself to only one it was visible that the church must be all united in the faith of Christ. Peter is only the 'symbol', the 'type' of all the apostles and all the bishops' (Cyprian, De catholica ecclesiae unitate c. 4-5).
Eusebius (260 ca. - 340) condemned the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary: ' No one is exempt from the stain of original sin, not even the mother of the Redeemer of the world . Jesus alone is exempt from the law of sin, although born of a woman subjected to sin ' (Eusebius, Emiss. In Orat. II de Nativ.).
Ambrose (c. 340 - 397) of Milan was against the primacy of Peter in fact he said: 'Peter obtained a primacy, but a primacy of confession and not of honor, a primacy of faith and not of order' (Ambrogio, De incarnationis dominicae sacrament IV).
Ambrose was also against the immaculate conception of Mary in fact he stated: 'Jesus is the only one that the snares of sin have not bound; no creature conceived for the coupling of man and woman has been exempt from original sin; He alone was exempt from it who was conceived, without that coupling, by a Virgin through the work of the Holy Spirit ' (Ambrose, In Psalm 118).
Irenaeus (c. 150 - c. 200) condemned the use of images and stated that the first to introduce the cult of images into the Church were the Gnostics: 'They are called Gnostics and have some painted images, others also made with other material, saying that they are the image of Christ made by Pilate in the time when Jesus was with men ... they reserve all other honors for them, just like the pagans'(Irenaeus, Against heresies, Lib. I, chap. 25,6).
Athenagoras (2nd century) was against offering incense to God (Atenagora, Supplica per i Christians, Alba 1978, p. 62).
Epiphanius (310 ca. - 403), bishop of Cyprus, was against the images of Christ and the saints (Jerome, Lettres, Paris 1951, p. 171), as was Lactantius (III-IV centuries).
Epiphanius was also against the cult of Mary, in fact he wrote: ' The Saints must not be honored beyond their merit, because God is the One we must serve. The Virgin was not proposed to our adoration , since she adored the very One who according to the flesh was born of her. So no one should adore Mary. This mystery belongs to God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and not to any man or woman. Therefore, let certain little women cease from disturbing the Church, stop saying: We honor the Queen of Heaven ', because with these speeches they fulfill what has been foretold:' Some will apostatize from the faith, giving themselves in the arms of seductive spirits and the doctrines of demons '. No, this error of the ancient people will not prevail over us, to make us deviate from the living God and adore creatures' (Epiph. Lib. III, Comment. II, tom. 2, Haeres 79).
John Chrysostom (344-407) was opposed to forbidding marriage to bishops and to ear confession. And Chrysostom was always against transubstantiation, in fact he wrote:'Before the consecration we call it bread, but then ... it loses the name of bread and it becomes worthy to call it the Body of the Lord, although the nature of the bread continues to be so in it' (Chrysostom, Epistle to Cesario). Chrysostom was also contrary to Peter's primacy of jurisdiction (Chrysostom, Or. 8,3 Adv. Jud.).
Even St. Augustine (354-430) did not believe that Peter was the stone on which the Church of Christ was built. He said:'... I have often exposed the words spoken by the Lord: You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; as if by, above this, one must understand what Peter affirmed when he exclaimed: You are the living son of God; and that Peter took his name from this stone, because it represents the person of the Church built on this stone, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In fact, he was not told: You are stone, but You are Peter; the stone was Christ, and Simon, who recognized him as the whole Church recognizes him, was called Peter . ' (Agostino, The two books of retractions, Florence 1949, First Book, chap. XXI, pages 117-118).
Augustine was also against transubstantiation, and paraphrasing Jesus' words he stated:'Understand in a spiritual sense what I said to you: You will not eat this body that you see, and you will not drink this blood which will be shed by those who crucify me. I have recommended a sacrament that will give you life, if you intend it spiritually, and even if it is necessary to celebrate it in a visible way, it must nevertheless be understood spiritually ' (Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 98,9).
Pope Gelasius I (492 to 496) declared that it is wrong to communicate under one species only, therefore the Catholic doctrine that deprives the laity of the chalice was considered by Gelasius a sacrilege. Always Gelasius did not accept the transubstantiation in fact he wrote: 'The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is truly divine; butthe bread and wine remain there in their substance and nature of bread and wine ' (Gelasius, Delle due nature).
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394) forcefully denounced, in one of his epistles, the uselessness and folly of pilgrimages to the holy places (Gregory of Nyssa, Epist. II, De euntibus Hieros, Opera, III, 1010, ed. Migne).
Jerome (c. 347 - c. 419-20) declared pilgrimages to the holy land useless, and said: 'Believers are appreciated, personally, not on the basis of the different place in which they reside, but on the basis of the merit of their faith. True worshipers do not worship the Father either in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, because God is Spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth. '(Girolamo, The letters, Rome 1962, vol. 2, Letter to Paolino, page 94.95).
Arnobius (4th century) was against offering incense (Arnobius, Book VII, 26, page 227).
Pope Leo I (from 440 to 461) was against the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary: 'Christ alone among men was innocent, because He alone was conceived without filth and carnal greed' (Quoted by Teofilo Gay in op. cit., p. 130).
Pope Gregory the Great (from 590 to 604) did not accept as a canon the book of Maccabees that the Catholic Church uses instead.
Gregory the Great was also against the assumption of the title of universal bishop by any bishop in fact he stated: 'The one who wants to be called universal pontiff becomes the forerunner of the antichrist through his pride; no Christian must take this name of blasphemy ' (Greg. Ep. Lib. VI, 80).
And writing to John, patriarch of Constantinople, who had proclaimed himself universal bishop, he said to him:'.. what will you say John to Christ who is the head of the universal Church in the performance of accounts on the day of final judgment? You who strive to prepare for all your brother bishops of the universal Church and who with a superb title want to carry their name under your feet in comparison with yours? What are you doing with this, if not repeating with Satan: I will ascend to heaven and exalt my throne above the stars of God's heaven? Your fraternity while despising (the other bishops) and making every possible effort to subject them to them, does nothing but repeat what the old enemy already said: I will rise above the most sublime clouds (...) May your Holiness therefore recognize how great it is your pride claiming a title that no other truly pious man has ever claimed ' (Gregory, Epistolarum V, Ep. 18, PL 77, pages 739-740).
Theodoret , bishop of Cyrus (393-458), declared himself against transubstantiation and affirmed: 'The mystical symbols (bread and wine) do not abandon their nature after the consecration, but retain the substance and form in everything as before ' (Theodoret, Dialogus, Liber II).
Even Pope Vigilius (from 537 to 555) was against transubstantiation, in fact he affirmed: 'When the flesh of Jesus Christ was on earth, it certainly was not in Heaven; and now that it is in Heaven, it is certainly not on earth ' (Vigilius, Against Eutich. Lib. IV).
There are still many things to say, but in the face of these statements coming from the fathers of the Catholic Church, one can realize that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church of the first centuries, but a church that has moved away from the teachings of the Lord and by the will of his own fathers.
This situation was foreseen by the apostles Peter and Paul, who solemnly warned believers about the future of the church: "There will be among you false teachers who will occultly bring in heresies of perdition" (2 Peter 2: 1). Similarly Paul said:"I know that after my departure ravenous wolves will introduce among you, who will not spare the flock; and even among yourselves men will arise who will teach perverse things to drag the disciples along. Therefore keep watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I have not ceased to admonish each one with tears " (Acts 20: 29-31).
This is exactly what happened. After the first two centuries of true Christianity, born with Christ and proclaimed by his apostles, those doctors appeared who left simple Christianity behind, gradually adding those of men to the teachings of Christ.
The Christian Church of the first centuries was also called "catholic", that is, "universal", because it embraced in a single spiritual family all the people truly converted to Jesus Christ. What arose a couple of centuries later was no longer the Christian Church, persecuted and hated by the world, but the state religion that became the persecutor of millions of Christians.
No comments:
Post a Comment