Untrustworthness of Tradition?


I was talking with one of my friends from my old SDA days and he told me how unreliable Tradition was pointing out that David Currie in his book “Born Fundaminalist, Born Again Catholic” says in his chapter on authority that bishops of Anicoh, Constaninople, ect. have taught heresy thus showing that Tradition and Apostolic Tradition is historically untrustworthy. What should I say in response to this? Thanks and God bless.


That’s like saying mathematics is untrustworthy because some people add 19 and 72 and get 81. Now, how do we know that 81 is not the right answer? Because we have a reliable method of comparing that answer to what we know is the correct answer.

Same with all these heresies. The very fact that they were detected and exposed as heresies shows that the Church understands what is contained in the deposit of faith and what is not. The very fact that your SDA friend is talking about heresies is proof that the Church got it right in opposing them.


I get that Tradition is when authorities in the Church speak with “one voice”, and thusly can be seen the work of the Spirit. Naming singular voices here and there don’t amount to development of doctrine or show what the Church as a whole believed at any point.

For instance you can see many different ECF understanding John 6 and 1 Cor. 11 as identifying the Real Presence.


Did you read the book they spoke of…I’ll wager that they misrepresent it.


I am amazed to know that this priest thinks he is more wise than the Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If he thinks tradition is unreliable, ask him if he believes whether the books of the Bible are inspired. The books of the Bible were all handed down by oral tradition, prior to being reduced to writing. .In essence, he is flat wrong in his statement. I know of several priests that come out with outlandish statements like that. I merely keep them in my prayers.
Deacon Ed B


How do we know the Bible is accurate

Well, because when the Church decided what books to put in the bible those books had to be in accordance with the oral Traditions of the Church.
Well, the early Church would say the Bible is accurate because it is in accordance with Tradition.

Therefore, one cannot accept the authenticity of scripture without Tradition.

Remember there were many heretical “Gospels” and “letters” that were deemed so not because they contradicted scripture, but because they contradicted tradition.

So to accept the Bible is to accept Church Tradition.

And advise anyone that Tradition in the Catholic Church = Teachings of Jesus.


Customs, such as styles of dress, sign of the cross, crucifixes etc.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.