As a strong believer in the Sufficiency of Scripture, I don't often like to use external sources to defend my faith. That's not to say I can't do it, or even that I never do, I just find it redundant. As I wrote in a previous article, why cite a lawyer when you can cite the King? Unfortunately, while I itch to search the scriptures daily, many heretics rush to the opposite. The most prominent example is the Catholic Church, who rely on "Sacred tradition", claiming scripture and tradition are like the two lungs of faith.
In practice, however, this is not how things play out. Tradition is used to interpret scripture, but scripture is never used, as it should be, to test tradition. Therefore, while they are equal in theory, they are not equal in practice. In Catholicism, when scripture and tradition butt heads, tradition wins.
In reality, the opposite should be the case. Because of this, when Catholics refuse to stick to the scriptures, instead insisting on going to the Church "Fathers", I am quite fond of citing one man in particular: Irenaeus.
In Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 2, Irenaeus writes "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:"
In context, the "they" of which Irenaeus speaks are the "all heretics" mentioned at the end of chapter 1. This is a particularly powerful quote, since it can be so easily applied to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church asserts that scripture is ambiguous, and that truth cannot be extracted from it by those who are ignorant of tradition. Likewise, it asserts that truth was originally delivered by word of mouth (the meaning of "vivâ voce"). Many Catholics even ask "which came first, scripture or the Church?", as if this, in any way, means the inspired word of God Himself is subject to the authority of man.
From this, we get a fairly simple syllogism:
P1: Heretics claim you can't extract truth from scripture without tradition.
P2: Catholics claim you can't extract truth from scripture without tradition.
C: Catholics are heretics.
"But there's more to that book!" the Catholic may reply. Indeed, this is how the only two Catholics to ever address this quote for me have replied. But ironically, while one of them accused me of cutting off the quote too early, he cut off the next quote too early as well. Here's the part he quoted:
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches,..."
It's quite obvious why he stopped mid sentence. Just as Catholics must selectively quote scripture to change its meaning, so also must they selectively quote the Church "Fathers" to change theirs. So of course, when Irenaeus says that tradition originates from the Apostles, and is preserved by means of succession of the presbyters in the Churches, he sees that as support for Apostolic Succession. However, just as scripture interprets scripture, Irenaeus must be allowed to interpret Irenaeus.
And so the first thing we must remember is that Irenaeus has already dismissed tradition, not as outright heretical, but as a method of interpreting scripture. This is a major problem for Catholics; they never seem to understand quite what is meant by "Sola Scriptura". Sola Scriptura is not the total negation of any and all traditions. Tradition, by definition, is simply that which is passed down. It can be evil, such as when the Pharisees "...made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition." (Matthew 15:6). But at the same time, it can be good. Scripture itself is a tradition.
The second thing we must focus on is that word "again". This means Irenaeus has already explained what he means elsewhere. Where, exactly? Thankfully, only one chapter earlier: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
So what is the tradition to which Irenaeus refers? The Papacy? The Marian dogmas? Purgatory? These things had not even been introduced to the Church at this time. No, the traditions to which he refers is the Gospel which the Apostles originally preached orally, but later handed down in the scriptures. He even indirectly lays the smack down on a common Catholic misquote by calling these scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith".
This ties in quite nicely with verses like Acts 15:27, which says "We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth." I have always pointed out that the Apostles did not write scripture one day, then play Chinese Whispers the next. Oral tradition does, in fact, perish. This is the entire point of writing. Speech may perish the moment it leaves the mouth, but what is written may survive even the death of its author. The words of the Apostles did, indeed, perish, save that which, according to Irenaeus, they "...handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
Now, can that be preserved by a succession of presbyters? This depends entirely on the integrity of the presbyters. Remember what Paul warned in Acts 20: "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (v28-30).
And so we see that even a direct connection to the Apostles is no guarantee of preservation. Pedigree and continuity are two separate things. "from among yourselves". As Judas was a hand chosen Apostle of the Lord, so also can many wolves put on a cloak of wool, and as Paul says, "draw away disciples after themselves". This would certainly describe the Papacy. Who, but a heretic, would claim to be the "visible head of the whole Church militant", to whom one must submit to obtain salvation?
But of course, Catholics will claim this never happened with them. So will Catholic splinter groups, who will say it is the Catholic Church that went rogue. Who, if either, is correct, and how do we know? Let's get back to Irenaeus:
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession 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, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."
Here, we have the whole of verse 2. Suddenly we see to whom Irenaeus is referring. He isn't somehow suggesting that tradition is equal to scripture, or that those who are ignorant of tradition will struggle to understand scripture. Rather, he is speaking of those who reject both scripture and tradition. Tradition being, I shall remind you, almost synonymous with scripture. These particular heretics are not relying solely on scripture. To my knowledge, none of the Early Church "Fathers" even hint that a particular reliance on the word of God will lead to an incomplete faith. Not that it would matter if they did, but if they did, I do not know it. No, these heretics consider themselves greater than scripture. As in the previous verse, they talk of tradition, even saying the scriptures are too ambiguous to be understood without it. But here, they do not consent to tradition because they believe they know the hidden mysteries.
Ultimately, scripture is scripture, whether spoken or written. And of course, back then, neither the printing press, nor the internet, had yet been invented. Therefore, not everyone had a Bible. So how did they learn scripture? The same way most people do now. They regularly met with other believers to study their limited copies. In other words, they learned by tradition. So I suppose in one sense, since scripture interprets scripture, there is indeed one tradition scripture cannot be understood without: Scripture. But the evidence is clear that in Irenaeus' view, scripture is the pillar and ground of faith, and truth can be extracted from them by those ignorant of tradition. Particularly without the tradition of men who fancy themselves superior to the Apostles.
While not by word, the Catholic Church does fancy itself greater than the Apostles. In Acts 17:10-12, we read "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men."
What do we see here? Without doubt, the highest authority in this text is scripture. In second place, Paul. When Paul, a legitimate authority sent by God, went to the synagogue of the Jews with the true message of the Gospel, they did not immediately receive Him. Rather, they searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. They searched the scriptures daily. Paul did not storm into this synagogue laying down his law. He taught the truth, and the Bereans consulted God. If Paul had been lying, do you suppose they would have entertained him any longer? Would God have looked down on them for doing so? But no, Paul taught the truth, and the scriptures confirmed it. Therefore, not only did the Jews believe, but so also did "not a few of the Greeks...". Gentiles! People who were not among God's chosen people. People who had not been entrusted with the oracles of God. People with zero authority in the Christian faith searched the scriptures daily to test... Paul.
Yet this whole discussion exists precisely because Catholics aren't interested in searching the scriptures daily to see if their traditions are true. Rather, they use their traditions to interpret the scriptures, claiming they, and they alone, have the authority to interpret it for you. Had the Pope been sent to Berea instead of Paul, he would not have called them "noble minded", but "arrogant" for assuming they have the right to interpret scripture "...contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Council of Trent, session 4). And of course, they would have done so, for even in the Old Testament there are many refutations of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it was not until the Council of Trent that the Deuterocanon was added to the Catholic canon of scripture. At that time, Apocryphal writings, as Athanasias wrote in his 37th Festal Letter, "...have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety...". This, by the way, came after Irenaeus, meaning the prevailing tradition up to this point, at least in the eyes of Athanasias, was that the modern Catholic canon is wrong.
So would Irenaeus consider Catholicism heretical? It's hard to say, since once can hardly ask him, but based entirely on these two chapters of Against Heresies, I would say almost certainly he would. He seems like a faithful Christian, he is respected in most Christian circles, and in this particular work, he demonstrates a very non-Catholic understanding of the authority of scripture and tradition. Since Catholics say exactly what Irenaeus says heretics say, I can only reasonably conclude that if Irenaeus was alive today, he would absolutely call the Catholic Church out as the heretical organisation it is. Using the scriptures, we can do it for him.