Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? That question can spark endless debate because it is largely irresolvable. Catholic teaching is that God is revealed through sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, hence the statement that Catholicism is a “both/and” faith practice.
Our protestant brethren hold that scripture alone is the only authoritative resource for the faith and practice of the Christian. This doctrine is referred to as Sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The often-quoted verse to support this doctrine comes from the Second Letter of Timothy, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).
To view this from a Catholic perspective, some definitions are in order at the outset. Sacred Scripture, or the Bible, is a collection of works written under divine inspiration. Sacred Tradition is the unwritten or oral record of God’s Word to His prophets and apostles, received under divine inspiration and faithfully transmitted to the Church under the same guidance. Tradition differs from Scripture in that Tradition is a living reality passed on and preserved in the Church’s doctrine, life, and worship, while Scripture is a tangible reality found in written form.
Since the Protestant Reformation, a sticking point in the dialogue between Protestants and Catholics has been the perceived rivalry between Scripture and Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that “sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.” The focus of the debate shifted from one of “Scripture versus Tradition” to a discussion of the Lord’s desire to reveal Himself to His people, a process carried forward by both Scripture and Tradition.
From the temporal point of view, Tradition precedes Scripture, and the Church precedes both in that the writing of the New Testament did not begin until some fifteen to twenty years after the Pentecostal formation of the Church and was not completed until perhaps as late as a.d. 120. The Gospel message, then, was imparted through oral tradition first, and only later was it committed to written form. The means (whether oral or written), however, is in many ways secondary to the goal (revelation) and to the receiver of the revelation (God’s people, the Church).
An example from the American government might be instructive. The law of the land is found in the Constitution of the United States; it is normative for American life. However, it is not a self-interpreting document. On the contrary, it calls for detailed, professional interpretation from an entire branch of government dedicated to that purpose. Furthermore, when conflicting views do emerge, standard procedures of jurisprudence call for a return to the sources in an effort to discover the minds of the people who produced the document.
The canon of the Bible (the officially accepted list of inspired books) is the most evident proof of the validity of this approach. We know with the utmost certitude that no authoritative list of scriptural books existed until the fourth century. And who then produced this canon? None other than the Church meeting in the ecumenical council. Therefore, the value and even, one could say, the validity of the written Word is established only after its inspiration and inerrancy are assured and attested to by the Church. The process of divine revelation thus began with the Church, through Tradition, and subsequently passed into Scripture, and not the other way around.
Can it happen, though, that Scripture and Tradition will at times contradict each other? Impossible—because they are just two sides of the same coin, whose purpose is the same and whose origins are the same. Since God wishes to reveal Himself to us, He has guaranteed the process in both its oral and written expressions (and not one more than the other). Furthermore, God cannot contradict Himself. Saint Paul apparently had this very concept in mind when he urged his readers at Thessalonika to “hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Th 2:15). This very passage, however, raises a secondary but related problem.
Some Christians tend to confuse “Tradition” with “traditions.” Having already defined Tradition, we need to consider the meaning and place of traditions (customs or practices). Sacred Tradition is divine in origin and, so, unchangeable; traditions are human in origin and therefore changeable. Some examples that come to mind are various devotions to the saints, processions, acts of penance, and the use of incense or holy water. No Church authority has ever held that these practices are divinely mandated; at the same time, no one can demonstrate that they are divinely forbidden. Traditions exist to put people in touch with Almighty God. To the extent that they do, they are good; to the extent that they do not, they are bad and should be modified or abolished.
On the other hand, certain defined dogmas cannot be found explicitly in Scripture (for example, Mary’s Assumption or Immaculate Conception). Yet, the Church binds its members to an acceptance of these teachings. How so? First of all, nothing in Scripture contradicts these dogmas. Second, they have been a part of the Tradition (or oral revelation) from the beginning. Third, because they can be implicitly located in Scripture, waiting, in a sense, to be uncovered by the Church’s prayerful reflection over the centuries.
Scripture comes alive only in the life of the community that gave it birth and has since preached and proclaimed it. To remove Scripture from its moorings in the Church is to deny it genuine vitality. Scripture provides Tradition with a written record against which to judge its fidelity and thus serves as a safeguard. In the “balance of powers” (to resort once more to the governmental analogy), Tradition is a defense against an unhealthy individualism that distorts the Bible through a private interpretation at odds with the constant Tradition of the Church.