Do scripture and tradition contain different truths?

John 20:30

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book...

This passage, along with John 21:25, is often cited by Catholic and Orthodox Christians as evidence that the bible does not contain the entire word of God.  The reasoning goes:  if we know there were things said which were not recorded, then we know that the bible alone cannot be the complete source of God’s word.  Therefore, we must rely on Sacred Tradition to guide our walk in service of Christ,  because He, being divine, said things which are undoubtedly truth yet were not written down.  These sayings, or traditions, by Christ and inspired apostles were passed down orally and since we know this is the case we can conclude that all truth, no matter how it was passed down to us, is important and vital to our walk in the faith.

To be clear, here is what the Catholic Catechism says about Sacred Tradition....

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

(paragraph 81, www.usccb.org)

But what did the apostles preach?

Acts 10:42

"And He [Christ] ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.

Acts 14:7

...and there they continued to preach the gospel.

Acts 14:15

...and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.

Romans 1:15

So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Romans 10:15

How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"

Romans 15:20

And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation....

1 Corinthians 1:23

...but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness...

1 Corinthians 9:16

For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.

2 Corinthians 10:16

...so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another.

The apostles preached the gospel, or good news, of Christ crucified.  This is a matter well covered in scripture and therefore there is no cause for its continued delivery through Sacred Tradition.  That is not to say that tradition cannot be a terrific learning tool, but it is delivering the same message which is also recorded for us in the bible.

Consider the following passage....

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

This verse is pointed to by many as proof that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two separate things.  But it’s important to note that in the reading of this passage the word “or” is used, not “and.”  It says to hold to the traditions we were taught by word of mouth or by letter.  Either will suffice because both contain the same information.  One was just easier to access than the other at this time, but the information was in no way unique.

Both the bible and tradition deliver the gospel.  Both the bible and tradition instruct us on the organization of the Lord’s church.  Both the bible and tradition tell us how to be saved.  But in this day and age when we are far removed from the original source of oral tradition, it is the bible, which is now complete for us, that we rely on.  And we see by the words of the apostles that our reliance on scripture was intended.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

It is often pointed out to me that the above verse does not say that all truth is in scripture.  True enough.  However, it does tell us that scripture is capable of equipping us for every good work.

There is no other work to be equipped for that Sacred Tradition can provide.  Therefore, the tremendous authority the Catholic and Orthodox churches give their traditions is unfounded.  If the bible contains all that is necessary for our salvation then anything else is either optional or outright heretical.

Many traditions across various Christian denominations are in no way sinful and are perhaps even appealing to some as a means of embracing the Christian faith.  Let us not, however, expend so much effort to keep such teaching and rituals which do not come from God.  Let us strengthen ourselves in what is necessary and useful.

We have a pope?

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the next pope of the Catholic Church as of today.  The name he is taking is Pope Francis, for Saint Francis of Assisi.

I am not catholic myself, and have many misgivings over certain teachings of the church in particular, but I have enjoyed following the conclave and resulting papal selection.  Pope Francis seems like a humble man, based on the bare minimum I know about him.  I read a Wikipedia biography of him, and I saw him speak.  Of course, he did not speak in English, so I had to read a translation later.  But the soft manner of his speaking, and the mere polite wave he gave to his audience, were things I found endearing about this man I do not know and feel exercises no authority over me.  On first impression it feels like the cardinals picked a good man to be pope, but of course, time will reveal all.

Because of this recent news I have been thinking more and more about the assertion that Matthew 16 is biblical evidence for the necessity of a papal office.

Matthew 16:18-19
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

After all these years I do not find it any more compelling than I did previously, but I will admit that I can understand it from a Catholic perspective more readily.  After all, though I am not Catholic, I believe in that the Church does hold authority.  I believe that overseers and deacons make up the body of Church offices for the guiding and help of other members of a particular congregation.  So while I used to deny the basis of papal authority without a second thought with a snide "pfft, God is the head of the Church NOT MAN DUH," I now realize in my growth that earthly authority was certainly planned for by the Lord God Himself.  After all, the authority of the Lord's Church is quite prevalent in the New Testament.

But it always comes back to the same question.  Is this what the Lord intended for His Church?  I don't question whether or not God could establish an environment in which we are guided by a lone man acting as bishop over the entirety of the earthly members (with Christ as the head over all).  I don't question the possibility of a man being gifted with infallibility at certain times as guided by the Holy Spirit.  I don't doubt that God could have designed the Church this way if He wanted because he's God.

The question is whether God did, not whether he could.

Yet it is well and good that this man, humble as he seems, is taking the role of someone who oversees a great many people.  Far be it from me to wish any crisis or scandal on the Catholic Church.  A humble man can inspire a humble people and that is always a good thing.