The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Reading Scripture during Lent: Scripture and Tradition

The process of Divine Revelation thus began with the Church, through Tradition, and subsequently passed into Scripture, and not the other way around.

Pope Francis leads a session of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon at the Vatican Oct. 8, 2019. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)

Editor’s note: This is the second essay in a three-part series on “Reading Scripture during Lent”. Part One was “A Catholic Understanding of the Bible”.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? That question can touch off an endless debate because it is largely irresolvable. In the realm of theology, some questions have a similar effect. For many, the question “Which comes first, Scripture or Tradition?” is equally impossible to resolve. A careful analysis of the question, however, yields a very clear and satisfactory answer.

Some definitions are in order at the outset. Sacred Scripture, or the Bible, is that 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 (CCC 81–82). Since the Protestant Reformation, a sticking point in ecumenical dialogue has been the perceived rivalry between Scripture and Tradition.

The way Dei Verbum handles the problem, the conflict is more apparent than real, as the Council Fathers declare that “sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church” (n. 10; CCC 80, 84). Thus the focus of the debate is 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 (CCC 83), 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 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 mind of those who produced the document.

With appropriate allowances made for the divine workings in the case of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church, one finds many parallels that are useful. First, the Scriptures did not descend from Heaven in final form but took shape in and through the community of the Church, responding to and working under divine inspiration. Second, the Scriptures are not self-explanatory documents but require “an authentic interpretation,” which task “has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone” (CCC 85), according to the Second Vatican Council. The bishops at Vatican II conclude these considerations by asserting:

. . . in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.(Dei Verbum, n. 10).

Is this explanation mere wishful thinking to justify Catholic theology and practice? Not at all, for the historical record bears out all these points. The canon of the Bible (the officially accepted list of inspired books) is the clearest proof of the validity of this approach (CCC 120). 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 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. Interestingly, Saint Augustine of Hippo – one of the greatest commentators on Holy Scripture, an eminent preacher of the Word, and highly regarded by Protestants as well – made this astonishing comment in “Against the Letter of Mani” (397 A.D.): “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” In other words, the Church serves as the guarantor of the Scriptures.

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 “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Th 2:15).

This very passage, however, raises a secondary but related problem. Some Christians tend to confuse “Tradition” with “traditions” (CCC 83). 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 (even the Protestant Reformers saw this and referred to certain things as “adiaphora” or theologically neutral). 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.

Certain defined dogmas, on the other hand, cannot be found explicitly in Scripture (for example, Mary’s Assumption or Immaculate Conception), yet the Church binds her members to an acceptance of these teachings. How so? First of all, because nothing in Scripture contradicts these dogmas. Second, because they have been a part of the Tradition (or oral revelation) from the very 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 ever since preached and proclaimed it (CCC 94).

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.

For Christians, the Bible is not revelation in itself; for us, revelation is a Person, not a book – no matter how holy. To worship a book is bibliolatry. A truly accurate and truly Christian view of revelation takes all these seriously: God, the Church, the Church’s Tradition, and the Church’s Scriptures. The focus of our attention, however, is not the Church, the Scriptures, or Tradition, but God. The other three are means given us to arrive at our end – union with God (CCC 95).

In Part Three, we shall review how pervasive is the presence and influence of Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Peter M.J. Stravinskas 280 Articles
Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas founded The Catholic Answer in 1987 and The Catholic Response in 2004, as well as the Priestly Society of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, a clerical association of the faithful, committed to Catholic education, liturgical renewal and the new evangelization. Father Stravinskas is also the President of the Catholic Education Foundation, an organization, which serves as a resource for heightening the Catholic identity of Catholic schools.


  1. while I generally find this article to be accurate and well stated the instances of tradition that are used as “for example, Mary’s Assumption or Immaculate Conception” are not accurate. Both were late additions to official teachings and the Assumption was a result of (depending on which story you read) 4th or 7th century argument as to whether the Blessed Mother was buried in Ephesus or Jerusalem and upon finding that her remains were in neither burial spot, they assumed she had been taken into heaven. Accurate reading of actual history and not anecdotal history finds both claims spurious with regards to “always believed”. The Immaculate Conception was official in Vatican I and the Assumption became official or dogmatically defined in 1950. Be careful with the facts please.

    • That these two doctrines were “invented” late in the game is disputed by the fact that the three principal Protestant Reformers — Luther, Calvin and Zwingli — accepted these teachings, centuries before their dogmatic definition.

  2. For Christians, the Bible is not revelation in itself; for us, revelation is a Person, not a book – no matter how holy. To worship a book is bibliolatry (Fr Stravinkas). There is difficulty in this interpretation regarding the New Testament especially the Gospels. Please correct if I’m wrong to assume “bibliolatry” is ‘inspired’ in opposition to the Protestant Lutheran premise of Sola Scriptura. The Gospels we know by faith are inspired by God to confirm the revelation of Christ. Jesus of Nazareth reveals himself as the Messiah. Although this person Jesus reveals himself as other than simply a person from Nazareth. We find that sense in Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth insofar as the spiritual content revealed in the Gospels. Even if we admit correctly that not all revelation is contained in the Gospels or letters, acts how can we logically argue that this is not divine revelation not to be relegated to or subject to bibliolatry? That revelation is instead a person? Logically said it is a Person Jesus who reveals the Father. It is a Person who is truth itself who reveals truth in himself. The Person is identical with ‘what’ he reveals. If Jesus is revelation the meaning is empty unless this Person reveals other than a person. For example we believe because God has spoken. In this instance he has spoken to us in his Son. We may say Jesus is the revelation of the Father but nonetheless revealing the divinity thru his human nature or visa versa. Perhaps this can be explained better than my understanding. We worship the Person who is revealed in the Gospels. The Person Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospels are identical in what is revealed.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Reading Scripture during Lent: Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church - Catholic Daily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.