Tradition, an Inextricable Part of the Historic Deposit of Faith

Tradition, an Inextricable Part of the Historic Deposit of Faith

++ Michael Callahan

Presiding Archbishop, The Catholic Church in America

Introduction:

For Catholics, Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Teaching Magisterium go hand in hand as a metaphorical three-legged stool. Remove one leg and the whole thing comes tumbling down.  The people of God, the CHURCH, have as their head, the bishops, in council who are responsible for ensuring orthodoxy, or right teaching, relying on both holy scripture and holy tradition.

In this article, I will be discussing a bit of how we determine just what is orthodoxy, and why Holy Tradition is of such primary importance. We will also look into this from the perspective of the Church Fathers and shed some light on a few phrases: “Formal Sufficiency” (Protestant Sola Scriptura) and the Catholic position of “Material Sufficiency.” 

In our daily walk of faith is quite common (for me) to engage with Protestant Christians who take umbrage with the Catholic Church. One of their chief concerns usually is related to our reliance on tradition. Ever since Martin Luther, and the Reformation, Protestant churches have been insisting on the “formal sufficiency” of scripture. By this, they usually mean that nothing else is necessary to discern Christian truth than the bible — Holy Scripture. 

The problem is that their proof text (2 Timothy 3:16-17) does not make that bold statement of itself: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Yes. ALL scripture is indeed both inspired and useful, but the plethora of contradictory interpretations gives witness to scripture’s lack of sufficiency.

In a recent discussion with a Protestant Christian friend, it was pointed out; “but you have to twist the scriptures to come up with those other interpretations.” That was exactly my point. Since the 15th century Protestant Reformation, it has become common for men to create doctrine solely on how they feel scripture is “speaking to them.” In their pride and hatred of all things catholic, the reformers decided that the Church got it wrong for the fifteen-centuries. Luther’s five “Solas,” the protestant doctrine of “eternal security,” to name just a few, are examples of the “wisdom of men” supplanting authentic church teachings.

As a former Evangelical Protestant, myself, I questioned the validity of the concept of Sola Scriptura early on. It sounded a bit disingenuous, After all, isn’t protestant theology based upon the “Fathers” of their particular movements, such a Luther, Calvin, and others? Even the “Protestant Fathers” could not agree on certain key tenets of faith. The same holds true concerning the thousands of modern non-denominational churches. Each of them utilizes the same bible but yet coming to differing doctrinal positions.

A friend of mine who attends a non-denominational church recently countered my observation by asking about the number of Independent Catholic jurisdictions? My response was similar; “they have strayed from the historic deposit faith and are embracing modernism. The further a group moves away from an authentic practice of faith, the deeper into error the fall.”

The Catholic Fathers had a bunch to say in support of their reliance on the tradition from the very beginning. The Roman Church formally addressed the issue at the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent in 1546, and further defined in the Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum (1965):

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. Sacred 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. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scripture alone. Hence both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence… 

Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit, which is entrusted to the Church… 

But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone…

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it…. 

It is clear; therefore, that, 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…

Should Scripture alone be the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. A reading of 2 Peter 1:20-21 seems pretty straightforward that individual interpretation of scripture is insufficient in discerning the intent of biblical texts: “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

Probably the most infamous example that contradicts Sola Scriptura or formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Roman Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: “The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not “formally sufficient” to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been Trinitarian.” 

While we must guard against merely human tradition and the encroachment of heresy, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the future generations of bishops in apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they, in turn, will teach, and so on.

So, no. The Catholic Church has never taught “formal sufficiency” or Sola Scriptura. Rather, we utilize the concept of “Material Sufficiency.” I often refer to this position as “Prima Scriptura.” By this, we understand that the Bible does indeed contain everything we may know about God and Christian doctrine. However, the Bible alone is not clear enough to be the sole benchmark of faith. Not everyone accepts biblical teachings with the same understanding. The numerous schisms over the past two millennia give testimony to this.

St Vincent of Lerins (d445) put it in proper perspective this way:

“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity, and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law (scripture), and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. 

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, – because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation.” 

“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” (Commonitory, Chapter II).

Protestant teachings are far afield from St. Vincent’s vision of orthodoxy. One of my most common refrains is that adherents to reformation theology can’t find any of their unique distinctive teachings in the early Fathers or practice of the primitive Church.

Churches in the Conservative Old Catholic Tradition often reference the “Vincentian Canon,” which is the Latin phrase: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all).  This is found in the second chapter of Vincent’s “Commonitory.”

Continuing it states “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. “ (Commonitory ch. II, §6; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

The word “canon” refers to a standard or measuring stick.  It provides three criteria by which one can determine whether a doctrine was orthodox or heretical.  Vincent did not invent the “canon” named after him.  He summed up in elegant Latin the longstanding theological method used by the early Christians.

Vincent, the author of the Commonitory used the pseudonym “Peregrinus”; he was later identified as Vincent of the monastery of Lérins, a group of islands near present-day French Riviera.  He lived in the fifth century and was a contemporary of Augustine.  He wrote the Commonitory in protest against what he considered to be a novelty of Augustine’s teaching on predestination (see Pelikan Vol. I pp. 319-324).  It should be noted that Vincent lived long before there was a Protestant vs. Roman Catholic split.  When Vincent wrote about the Catholic Church, he had in mind the undivided Church founded by Christ, (prior to the Great Schism) not the later developments under the more modern Roman Catholicism that Luther and the Reformers protested against.  In its original sense, “catholic” meant “according to the whole,” rather than “universal.”

The Catholic Church in America (CCIA) frequently cites the Vincentian Canon in its assessment of the errors of Protestantism.  Using this approach we examine a doctrine by asking three questions:

Was this doctrine held by early Christians? (the test of antiquity);

Was this doctrine widely held among early Christians? (the test of ubiquity); and was this doctrine affirmed by the church as a whole? (the test of catholicity). 

We often find the Canon helpful for demonstrating the novelty of certain Protestant distinctives, e.g., sola scriptura, sola fide, and their understanding of the Eucharist.  For example, if the evidence for sola scriptura is found wanting among the church fathers then one has to wonder whether sola scriptura is part of the historic Christian faith or a later addition. We may also use the Canon in refuting modern, liberal catholic teachings, such as the acceptability of same-sex intercourse and marriage, along with women’s ordination to the priesthood.

Orthodoxy recognizes that church fathers as individuals may err but as a collective witness they bear witness to orthodox truth.

Quite often the Vincentian Canon has often been understood only with respect to the church fathers but it is broader in scope than that.  Vincent appeals to the general councils as one important means of ascertaining doctrinal orthodoxy (ch. XXIII, §59; ch. XXIX, §78).  The phrase “by all” in the Vincentian Canon had several meanings:

the consensus held among the bishops, the decisions made at councils, or

the devotional and liturgical practices among the laity (Vol. 1 pp. 338-339). 

As Pelikan notes: “A special mark of the universality and the authority of the church was the ecumenical councils” (Vol. 1 p. 335).  The bishops present at the councils were mindful that they were part of the undivided Church.  When they made decisions they did so conscious of their responsibility to safeguard the sacred Deposit of Faith.  They did not have the liberty to cherry-pick what they found useful or progressive.

An examination of the Commonitory will show that the Vincentian Canon is rooted in a rich theological heritage.  Studying the theological method described by Vincent of Lérins will enable us to compare the theological method of Protestantism and Liberal Catholicism against that of Orthodoxy.

From early in Church History, it has been the College of Bishops, the Teaching Magisterium, and meeting in council who have preserved and defended the historic deposit of faith from error. In these modern times, old errors are being resurrected. In that understanding Church leadership in our day should be about transmitting authentic, historic doctrine, and not be in the business of creating new teachings.

A commentator I came across recently had the temerity to claim that he was a “non-Trinitarian catholic.” This is nothing short of the ancient heresies of Sabellianism and Modalism. This is just one example of why we’ve formed the CCIA, and why I am writing these position papers — to combat error.

The hard work of doctrinal development and defining errors has already been accomplished. The task before us now, in the 21st century is to continue teaching and preaching that which has been handed down from antiquity; for within the historic deposit of faith is the essence of what it truly means to be “Catholic.”

In concluding, it is important to note that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no “fear” of “undermining” the authority of Scripture or “subordinating” the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium – fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such “fear” from the Catholic end is that material sufficiency by "nature" means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the “bricks” in the right order to form the right structure. That “fear” can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be fact – until then it is patently fallacious and fear-mongering.

 

As with what I’ve posted above from St. Vincent, the early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them vigorously. I’ve provided several quotes below for your edification.

The Early Church Fathers On Church Tradition

Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (60-130AD):

“Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who had a great deal to say, but with those who taught the truth; not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources but with those who appeal to the commandments given by the Lord to faith and coming to us from truth itself.  And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters [i.e. apostles], I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.  For I did not imagine that things out of the books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.” (Quoted by Eusebius).

Hegesippus (110-180AD):

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]). Letter to Diognetus (150-190AD): I am not speaking of things that are strange to me, nor is my undertaking unreasonable, for I have been a disciple of apostles, and now I am becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. The things that pertain to the tradition I try to minister fittingly to those who are becoming disciples of the truth.

Irenaeus of Lyon (125-202AD):

“We should not seek from others the truth which can easily be received from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the Apostles placed in fullness all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes can receive from her the water of life. She is the entrance to life.”

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.”

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]). 

“For although the languages of the world are different, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.  For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul.” (1.330, 331).

“When, however, they [the Gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures as if they were not correct… But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles.” (1.415).

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us.  And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (1.416)

“Papias [A.D. 120]:

Papias who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]). 

“In the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.  This man had seen the blessed apostles and had been conversant with them.  Therefore, he might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears] and their traditions before his eyes.  Nor was he alone in this.  For there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. (1.416)

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same since all receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body. And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world.  [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 20]

Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD):

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]). 

“The dogmas taught by strange sects will be brought forward.  And against these dogmas will be opposed all those things that should be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge that will advance to our view, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition. (2.302).*

“It is necessary for men to abandon impious opinion and turn from there to the true tradition. (2.530).

“He, who has spurned the ecclesiastic tradition and darted off to the opinions of heretical men—he has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. (2.551).

“The tradition of the apostles was one. “(2.555).

Tertullian (160-220AD):

For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof and all the Christian traditions.  [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 19]

The error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of the error, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 28]

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, as many as walk according to the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures.  [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 37]

Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing… What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them, we have our being, before there was any other way before they were interpolated by you… One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition.”  [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 38]

“We are in communion with the apostolic churches because there is no difference of doctrine….This test will be applied to those churches of a later date, which are daily being founded.  Though they cannot therefore produce an Apostle or an apostolic man for their founder, still, if they unite in holding the same faith, they equally are reckoned apostolic because of the kinship of their teaching.” [The Prescription Against Heretics]

“If for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.  Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them….These instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom.  The proper witness for tradition is its demonstration by long-continued observance.” (3.95).

“You [the church] lay down a rule that this faith has its solemnities appointed by either the Scriptures or the tradition of the forefathers.  No further addition in the way of observance must be added, because innovation is unlawful.” (4.111).

Origen (185-254AD)

“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]). 

Cyprian of Carthage (martyred 258AD):

“The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without.  For if she is with Novatian [a schismatic], she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]). 

“Know that we do not depart from the tradition of the Gospel and of the apostles.  Rather, with constancy and firmness, we…maintain the discipline of the church.” (5.357).

“The bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine grace, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth and of the tradition of the Lord.  They do not depart, by human and novel institution, from that which Christ our Master both commanded and did.” (5.359).

“You must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us and almost throughout all the provinces.” (5371).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339AD):

“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21). 

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373AD):

“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]). 

“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29). 

Epiphanius of Salamis (320-403AD):

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]). 

St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. 27) (born 330AD):

“Of the dogmas and sermons preserved in the Church, certain ones we have from written instruction, and certain ones we have received from the Apostolic Tradition, handed down in secret [i.e. private].  Both the one and the other have one and the same authority for piety, and no one who is even the least informed in the decrees of the Church will contradict this.  For if we dare to overthrow the unwritten customs as if they did not have great importance, we shall thereby imperceptibly do harm to the Gospel in its most important points.  And even more, we shall be left with the empty name of the Apostolic preaching without content.  For example, let us especially make note of the first and commonest thing: that those who hope in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the Sign of the Cross.  Who taught this in Scripture?  Which Scripture instructed us that we should turn to the east in prayer?  Which of the saints left us in written form the words of invocation during the transformation of the bread of the Eucharist and the Chalice of blessing?  For we are not satisfied with the words which are mentioned in the Epistles or the Gospels, but both before them and after them we pronounce others also as having great authority for the Mystery, having received them from the unwritten teaching.  By what Scriptures, likewise, do we bless the water of Baptism and the oil of anointing [i.e. Chrism] and, indeed, the one being baptized himself?  Is this not the silent and secret tradition?  And what more?  What written word has taught us this anointing with oil itself?  Where is the triple immersion and all the rest that has to do with baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels to be found?  What Scripture are these taken from?  is it not from this unpublished and unspoken teaching which our Fathers have preserved in a silence inaccessible to curiosity and scrutiny because they were thoroughly instructed to preserve in silence the sanctity of the Mysteries [i.e. Sacraments]?  For what propriety would there be to proclaim in writing teaching concerning that which it is not allowed for the unbaptized even to behold?

Augustine (354-430AD):

“…just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]). 

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from [oral] Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]). 

John Chrysostom (349-407):

“‘So then, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by Epistle of ours’ (2 Th. 2:15). Hence it is manifest that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no further.”  (Homilies on Second Thessalonians)