I received an essay written by a Protestant preacher (Mr. Jason) against Catholic Apologists:

According to Mr. Jason, Tradition is not what Catholic Doctrine understands it to be because:

1 - Most of the references to "tradition" in the NT are negative.

2 - There is no proof that what St. Paul didn't write to the Thessalonians wasn't written elsewhere in the Scriptures, instead of being entrusted to the Church as Oral Tradition.

3 - The doctrine of Immaculate Conception is not found in the Scriptures, nor is it found in the Church Fathers's writings.

4 - The doctrine of priestly confession is not found in the Scriptures, nor is it found in the Church Fathers's writings.

5 - The doctrine of indulgencies is not found in the Scriptures, nor is it found in the Church Fathers's writings.

6 - Many of the Church Fathers viewed Tradition as something of secondary authority, below the authority of Scripture.

Well, Mr. Jason is wrong because he departs from a completely mistaken point of view. He believes in Sola Scriptura, that isn't refered to in Scripture either.

The NT negative references to tradition he provides do not apply to Christan (Apostolic) Tradition. Let's see them one by one (unfortunately, I don't have an english Bible available; if someone has the e-text of a Bible - the Douay-Rheims version would be wonderful! - please send it to me):

Mt 15:1-14:

Here Our Lord rebukes the Pharisees for following false traditions. They ask Him why He didn't follow the "traditionem seniorum" (traditions of the elders) and he answers that they are breaking the Law of God to follow _their_ traditions (traditionem _vestram_); He tells them they are blindmen guided by blindmen (caeci sunt, et duces caecorum). Hence, it is not Tradition He is refering to, but rather human traditions (like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.).

Galatians 1:14:

Here St. Paul says he was a follower of the (Pharisaic) tradition _of his forefathers_ (abundantius aemulator existens _paternarum mearum_ traditionum). Again, nothing to do with Christian, or even Jewish, real Tradition (later down I'll explain why not even Jewish real Tradition).

Besides, when he abandoned the false human traditions of his forefathers he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, after spending some time in the desert (Galatians 1:18). After starting his preaching among the pagans, he went back to Jerusalem to see the Apostles and check if the Gospel we has preaching was correct, afraid that we would have labored in vain (Galatians 2:2).

Colossians, 2:8:

Once again, St, Paul is talking about the dangers of following the deceitful traditions of men (like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.): "inanem fallacian secundum traditionem _hominum_".

Thus we see how Mr. Jason misused the Scriptures, deliberately mistaking Pharisaic (human) tradition and Apostolic tradition.

The notion of (real) Tradition, on the other hand, is very much different from what Mr. Jason portraits. The Jewish Faith has always taken for granted that Oral Tradition is at least as important as Written Tradition, and the Apostles believed real Jewish tradition was correct. That is why when Our Lord rebuked the Pharisees, He made a point of telling them the "traditions of the forefathers" were "traditions of men" (not divinely taught Tradition).

In Mt 2:23, St. Matthew tells us the Our Lord lived in Nazareth, fulfilling thus what has been _said_ by the Prophets (quod _dictum_ est per prophetas) that the Christ would be called a Nazarene. It has not been written by any prophet; it is not in the Scriptures. It's (real) Jewish Oral Tradition.

In the times of Our Lord, there were three main sects in Judaism:

- Pharisees, who accepted Oral Tradition - and also sometimes added something human to that, "drawing a fence around the Law", to avoid accidental breaking of the Law; as the Law states that the meat of an animal cannot be cooked in its mother's milk, the Pharisees forbade eating any kind of meat together with any kind of dairy product, using the same dishes and pans for meat and dairy, etc.

- Saducees, who did not accept Oral Tradition, and

- Essenians, who had a (human) tradition of their own.

Our Lord tells the disciples to follow what the Pharisees teach (and not to follow what they do, for they were not obeying the very same Tradition they were teaching) in Mt 23:2-3; the funniest thing is that He explains the need of this obedience by telling the disciples that he Pharisees are speaking ex-cathedra (from the Chair of Moses - super cathedram Moysi). Oy, gefalt!

Also in 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul tells us an interesting story, that shows how Oral and Written Tradition are at the same level: writing about the figurative meanings of the OT, the takes one example that _is not_ in the written OT: the stone from which water flowed (Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13) _and which accompanied the Jews_ in the desert. There's nothing in the Scriptures about that stone walking along with the Jews! And that is the most important OT figure in this discourse, for it is the one that represents Our Lord (petram autem _erat Christus_)!

Also, when St. Jude tells us that St. Michael didn't judge the Devil's blasphemy when they were fighting for the body of Moses, but left the Judgement to God, (non est ausus iudicium inferre blasphemiae, sed dicit: Imperet tibi Dominus), he is also quoting from Oral tradition. Or can Mr. Jason find this dispute in the Bible?!

Also St. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:8, provides us the names of those who resisted Moses in Ex 7:8ss (Iannes and Mambres), that he could only have taken from Oral Tradition.

So we can easily perceive how the Apostles accepted real (not human, but divine) Jewish Oral Tradition.

It is also easy to see that they also taught orally, even because it took almost 400 years to have the Bible canon closed (by the Catholic Church, BTW):

There are references to Oral Tradition that must be kept at 2Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:13; 1 Corinthians 11:2; Galatians 1:14...;

St. Paul tells the Thessalonians to believe what they learned not only in his letters, but also what he told them orally, in 2 Thessalonians 2:5;

The Word of God is _heard_, not read, in 1Thessalonians 2:13;

St. Paul doesn't explain more in a letter because he had already explained it orally in 2Thessalonians 2:5ss;

Thimothy is told to keed the deposit (depositum custodi) in 1Thimothy 6:20 and 2 Thimothy 1:14; the Greek word for "deposit" is "paratheke". In 2 Thimothy 2:2, St. Paul tells Thimothy to trust what he _heard_ from him (from St. Paul) as public teaching to faithful men, able to instruct others. The word used by St. Paul to express this act of teaching is "parathou" (same root as paratheke), meaning that Thimothy must _deposit_ the _deposit_ to other men who will teach still others.

Let's now adress Mr. Jason's arguments:

- Reply to argument 1 (most of the references to "tradition" in the NT are negative):

It does not proceed, because he takes references to Jewish human tradition and mistakes them for references to Apostolic Tradition, forgetting also the actual use of Oral Tradition in the Apostolic teaching and the importance given by them to the transmission of this tradition (see above).

- Reply to argument 2 (there is no proof that what St. Paul didn't write to the Thessalonians wasn't written elsewhere in the Scriptures, instead of being entrusted to the Church as Oral Tradition):

False: there are historical proofs. The Churches that lost contact with the See of Peter in the first centuries (Ethiopians, Far-East Nestorians, etc.) still hold many doctrines taught by the Church but not explicit in the Bible; of course they have lots of false human tradition along with it, for they do not have Peter, but nevertheless they keep things that they would not have discovered by themselves if there was not an Oral Tradition partially kept by them.

Besides, the subjects about which St. Paul wrote briefly to the Thessalonians in 2 Thess. 2:1-5 are not found anywhere else in the Pauline Epistles, although they are found in the Book of Revelations, written a long time after St. Paul's martyrdom.

- Reply to argument 3 (the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is not found in the Scriptures, nor is it found in the Church Fathers's writings):

False, because it is in the Scriptures, although not explicitly (just like the Trinity, BTW). In Lk 1:28, St. Gabriel tells Our Lady She is "Gratia Plena" (Full of Grace). As she had not been baptised, and Grace is given through Baptism, the only way to be full of Grace is having had an Immaculate Conception.

As he can't believe at the same time in the testimony of the Church Fathers and in the human tradition of Sola Scriptura, a XVI century invention, there is no need to spend time typing quotes from the fathers of the Church.

- Reply to argument 4 (the doctrine of priestly confession is not found in the Scriptures, nor is it found in the Church Fathers's writings):

False. It is found at John 20:23, 2Cor 5:18-20, Acts 19:18 and James 5:16.

In John 20:23, Our Lord tells the Apostles (and just the Apostles), after His Ressurection, that the sins they forgive will be forgiven, and those they don't forgive won't be forgiven. It means that a human minister is needed for the forgiveness of sins, and that this human minister shall be one of the Apostles (or, of course, someone who received the Sucession of the Apostles: a priest).

In 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, St. Paul remembers us that human ministers are needed for the forgiveness of sins (dedit nobis ministerium reconciliationis/ posuit in nobis verbum reconciliationis), although that the sins are not forgiven by the person of the minister, but by Christ, in Whose Person the minister acts (pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur).

At Acts 19:18, we see the those who had believed came to Confession when they knew about St. Paul's conversion. Notice these are not people who converted because of St. Paul's conversion, but people who had already known the Faith (credentium - believers, not converts) and, moved by this amazing conversion, came to Confession.

St. James (James 5:16) also tells us about the need for the priests not to forget Confession, and to go to their fellow priests to confess their sins (no "confessing to God", here!): Confitemini ergo _alterutrum_ peccata vestra.

As he can't believe at the same time in the testimony of the Church Fathers and in the human tradition of Sola Scriptura, a XVI century invention, there is no need to spend time typing quotes from the fathers of the Church.

- Reply to argument 5 (the doctrine of indulgencies is not found in the Scriptures, nor is it found in the Church Fathers's writings):

Equally false. To understand it, we need to understand what indulgences are. When we commit a mortal sin (in other words: when we sin knowingly and deliberatedly in grave matter), we suffer two consequences: the eternal consequence - the death of our soul (that is why Baptism and Confession are called "Sacraments of the dead"), and the temporal consequence.

Venial sins have just the temporal consequence, that closes us to the Grace of God and makes it harder to accept it. Indulgences are nothing more than the prayers and good deeds of the faithful that the Church uses to help those who perform indulgenced actions.

Of course, as they help only purging us from the temporal consequences of our sins, they can only be received if someone has already confessed and thus has been forgiven of the eternal consequences of any mortal sin.

St. John tells us about the difference between mortal and venial sins, and the fact that the prayers of the faithful cannot purge the sins of those who are in state of mortal sin at 1 John 5:16-17.

St. Paul tells us that indulgences must be granted for those who need them at 2 Corinthians 2:6-10.

As he can't believe at the same time in the testimony of the Church Fathers and in the human tradition of Sola Scriptura, a XVI century invention, there is no need to spend time typing quotes from the fathers of the Church.

- Reply to argument 6 (many of the Church Fathers viewed Tradition as something of secondary authority, below the authority of Scripture):

Mr. Jason is arguing against himself. Most of the Church Fathers lived before the Bible canon was closed, in the end of the fourth century. Most of what Mr. Jason would willingly accept as Scripture had no other argument for itself at that time but being Tradition. When refering to Scripture, the Church Fathers could be refering either to the OT or (less probably) to loose books of the NT; the NT, nevertheless, had not its canon closed yet.

There is also another very important point: whose "tradition"? Tradition with a small or with a capital T? The Church Fathers were as strong as Our Lord when it came to rebuking those who followed human traditions (like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide), but they were very much conscious that the Apostolic Tradition should be kept, and that when a difference arose between the Tradition of Rome and a tradition of another see, the Roman one should prevail.

And yet another point Mr. Jason seems not to have noticed: the Church Fathers considered Tradition authoritative, even if he sees them as putting Tradition as something of secondary authority. No Sola Scriptura, here!