Church tradition --authoritative, or not? > Likes and Comments

An ongoing discussion on another thread prompted me to create this one, since the question posed in the above title is basic to the answer to a lot of the other questions in this folder. It's essentially a foundational question which has to be answered, one way or the other, before we can genuinely do theology at all.

As the posts in our The Bible's Inspiration/Authority thread (here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ) demonstrate, the authority of the Bible as the divinely given self-revelation of God to His people has been the bedrock conviction of, first, Old Testament Israel and now of the New Testament church, for as long as God has been inspiring written revelation. All classical Christian believers accept Scripture as authoritative (and that acceptance is a condition for membership in this group).

However, some Christian denominations (the Roman Catholic Church being the largest of these, but definitely not the only one) formally teach that they are the custodians of an originally oral, though now largely also written down, body of tradition, derived from God in the same way as the Bible is and equal to the Bible in authority, which supplements and infallibly interprets the Bible. And many denominations which do not formally make this claim for their denominational tradition treat it with the same degree of deference in their actual practice.

If true, this belief obviously has significant practical consequences for how we understand God's self-revelation, how we approach questions of faith and life, and how we functionally approach the Bible and attempt to use it as a common authoritative touchstone and reference point --or even if we actually can use it as a common touchstone and reference point in the first place. It also provides an answer (in this case, a loud "NO!") to the major philosophical question of whether or not it's possible for God (and, by implication, anybody else) to use written human language to understandably and objectively communicate religious truth.

Obviously, a long time elapsed between the creation of Adam and Eve and the writing of the first part of the Bible. All of the historical material now recorded in Genesis had to be handed down in an oral form for many generations. From the time of Abraham to that of Moses, the latter's descendants obviously passed down orally not only the accounts of their ancestors, but their understanding of what they felt their covenant relationship with Yahweh to be. One could argue that this demonstrates the primacy of tradition vs. written Scripture. But it's also a fact that this tradition had to be communicated in spoken human language, which is liable to the same misunderstandings and limitations that written language is. It's also a fact that God did not continue to depend on the supposedly perfectly adequate and even superior reliability of the oral tradition. At a very early point in Israel's history as a nation, He began to have authoritative written accounts of His acts and His laws put on scrolls, in fixed language. The obvious question is, why?

An answer that might be offered is, "Well, reading written texts of God's word would give private spiritual grace and blessing to individual believers, and be an aid to their spiritual formation." The problem with that answer is that most Bronze Age Israelites were illiterate, and that printing presses didn't exist. They didn't do devotional reading of the Pentateuch in their tents as a spiritual exercise. The purpose of writing this revelation down, in that historical context, was not to enable that. We're pretty much compelled to the conclusion that the purpose was to create an objective, black-and-white fixed version of the revelation which, even if it existed in only a few copies, existed as a reference point against which competing truth claims could be assessed (Isaiah 8:19-20). Yes, the Israelites were commanded to teach the revelation orally to their children (for instance, Deuteronomy 4:9-10). But it's significant that God didn't choose to put all of His eggs into that basket --and also fortunate, given that Old Testament history indicates that their success rate at obeying that command wasn't very good.

I continue to be impressed with your well thought-out presentation and tone as you bring up these topics. You are a treasure, Mr. Werner. I just feel that this hill may be too small for you. I hope you bring this type of discussion to wider audiences in other venues.


I wrestle with this quite often. Being a writer, I am well aware of how hard it actually is to say things exactly in words. And the Bible, every word gets a huge amount of scrutiny. To the point that I often feel we are just arguing about the meaning of words, and possibly even to the point of falling into the same trap the pharisees did. Christ's constant complaint was that they squabbled over the letter of the law and did not understand its spirit. I sometimes wonder if God might have preferred if it was not written down at all. But...he did write the 10 commandments, so I will assume that is an unsupportable thought.

I find that, even with the Bible as a guide, it still takes something beyond it to set it straight into one's heart. I attribute that to the Word and the Holy Spirit working within us. And ultimately, I must put my trust that God has own manner in reaching people, and I am at best an occasional instrument he makes use of. My own personal efforts of persuasion are an illusion, as if I have any skill of making Godliness important to anyone else. That must come from inside of them or it is not genuine anyway. So...I just hope I plant seeds and they bear fruit.

I am not really sure of my thoughts on all of it. But the question of is church tradition authoritative or not. Well, I think only to the degree that Christ made it so. Christ himself followed many traditions (Passover, circumcision...) and established some new ones (Baptism, the last supper...). He told Peter that it was on him he would build his church, so it does seem he wished for something organized to follow.

Some traditions show reverence in ways that keep us focused on God, but probably do not have extra value than if they were replaced by a different one serving the same purpose. As in, if is was a sign of respect to take off ones shoes before entering a church, and later that was changed to uncovering ones head, the thought that I must take an action in deference to respecting God is present in both actions, so does it matter which tradition expects me to do?

I dont think Tradition, or even the Bible, have much weight without the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the hand of God involved in all of it. The Holy Spirit is our guide through all of this, and works through us, and throughout the world, and is active even now, long after the Bible had its last word written and complied.

A question arises from the writing of the Bible. And that is, is there any revelation beyond it? Did all prophecy, and guidance stop when its last word was compiled into the whole of what it became? Or is true that the Holy Spirit will still at times make himself known? And does the written word still continue in the inspired writing of others? Did the many saints that followed have nothing to show or teach us? Are there yet many saints to come who will serve to point us back to Jesus. Well, obviously, me being Catholic, I do believe in the saints, and find meaningful, the various appearances of the Saints, Mary, and even Christ himself in various forms since his resurrection over the years. But in discussion with many of my Protestant brothers, they do not subscribe, so...its not useful to talk about.

The Catholic church follows many traditions. Some with their beginnings far back into the old testament, many from the new testament, and many still from the actions and practices of the early church, when the bible was still letters being passed around, and no formal book had been compiled yet. And only with deep prayer and consideration would they consider changing one (Such as saying the mass in English and not Latin, which still vexes many older school Catholics). The hope, and the belief is, that such things are guided by the Holy Spirit, and performed under the due authority that has been placed on them, which was imbued upon Peter with the Keys, and the loosing and binding authority Christ bestowed.

But the written word is super important. Any tradition or teaching that would make false what the Bible says, must be greatly suspect. God does not send us an inconsistent and contradictory message. The heart of the Law is mercy and justice. Its actual words support that. We must never lose sight of it. We must never say, but the Bible says, and therefore something cruel. It must be weighed against its heart. Even the people who lead in the church are still sinners. The Word and the Holy Spirit must be our guide.

Reading, interpreting, and understanding the Bible is a daunting and lifelong task. Many have come before who have had a lot to say about it, and from them we can learn as well. But, the written word or not, the Word is written into our hearts. The Holy Spirit wishes to fill us all. We must always be listening.

So which is greatest and most important. The Bible, the Tradition, the Oral stories, the Experiences of the saints, the guidance of the church or religious leaders, or the Holy Spirit working within us? I think it must all go together to make the whole. None is greater or lessor, they must all point to the same end. Jesus is our lord and savior, God loves and wants us, and the Holy Spirit is here to guide us.

I hope the Holy Spirit has guided me in my rambling. I am not really sure my complete thoughts on this.

Patrick, thanks for your kind words. (I don't know how well-thought my posts are, but I hope they're helpful to somebody at times!) I always appreciate your irenic and thoughtful posts. It's okay to not be really sure of your complete thoughts on any of these subjects; part of the value of these discussions is to help us clarify, and at times to even re-think, our ideas. (They've led me to do that, more than once!)

I had to look Irenic up. Am I Irenic? So often I feel jaded and disappointed. I feel it shows more than I would like. I have such hope for people, but they have to put in the work themselves, and so often don't. I pray...

I wish this group was more active, cause its feels like a place where well thought out people have things to say, but I also fear if it was, cause it would take up so much time to have so many thoughty discussions. I have a book to write.

I dont really know what happened, but this last year, even with Cancer knocking me out for a while, I have somehow gotten surrounded by Jesus and the Church. I like it.

I just wish my work would slow down so I can do what I think is wanted of me, and that is, finish that last book :)

Hang in there, Patrick, keep praying, and trust the Lord to work your writing schedule out in His good time (much easier said than done, I know!). You're in my (and I'm sure other folks,' too) prayers, for your health and healing, very faithfully.

Going back over your post in message 2, I find much that I agree with (though I understand the role of Peter somewhat differently, and we'll undoubtedly talk about that in more detail at some point). You're right that the role of the Holy Spirit in leading and guiding us as we apply the teachings of Scripture to our own lives, situations and relationships is absolutely crucial. The Holy Spirit was the one who inspired the writing of the Scriptures in the first place (II Peter 1:20-21 --the Old Testament is what's directly referred to there, but the principle applies to both testaments), and Paul says that without the Holy Spirit to give life, "the letter kills" (II Corinthians 3:6).

The role of the Spirit, of course, is not to supernaturally impart technical knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew vocabulary and grammar, information about relevant historical circumstances, the inside scoop on what textual variants conform to the original, etc. God expects us to use our minds to study the Bible, insofar as its meaning can be determined by study. But the Spirit has to shape the true perspective for applying it, which, as you also noted, is one of "mercy and justice" (and above all of love).

Our discussion of the Holy Spirit as an authority and guide in our lives is very much a New Testament phenomenon; believers in Old Testament times were not blessed with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of every believer. That was prophesied as a future blessing (for example, in Joel 2:28-29). John the Baptist proclaimed that the Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11), and Jesus told his disciples (John 14: 16- 17, 26) that the Father would send them the Holy Spirit to "teach you all things." The bestowal of the Holy Spirit on all the believers (not simply on the leaders, as in Old Testament times) on the day of Pentecost was the inaugural fulfillment of these prophecies (Acts 2:17-18).

Certainly, the Holy Spirit continues to play an ongoing active teaching and revelatory role in the lives of the saints (that is, the Christians, all of us who are called and set apart by God as holy to Himself, Romans 1:7). The ministry of prophets (those who speak forth the counsel of God with the guidance of His Spirit) is spoken of in both Acts and the Epistles. But God's self-revelation in Christ is the defining capstone of His revelation, which cannot be revised or superseded by anything coming after it (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Patrick wrote: "So which is greatest and most important. The Bible, the Tradition, the Oral stories, the Experiences of the saints, the guidance of the church or religious leaders, or the Holy Spirit working within us? I think it must all go together to make the whole. None is greater or lessor, they must all point to the same end. Jesus is our lord and savior, God loves and wants us, and the Holy Spirit is here to guide us."

There's much truth in this too; but the one point that makes the Bible somewhat unique on this list is that it's the only one with an objectively written text that we can all read. I can't impart my subjective experience of the Holy Spirit to you, or vice versa; each body of believers has its own traditions, that others don't necessarily share; and not everybody may be convinced of the qualifications of some would-be religious leaders. But the words of the Bible are a common, shared deposit that we all have access to --though we do need the Holy Spirit to rightly apply it, and can benefit from each other's insights in understanding it. :-)

In the New Testament, the Greek word translated (correctly) as "tradition" is paradosis. It's used there only 13 times, so the concept doesn't bulk very large. Paul praises the church in Corinth for holding to the traditions he passed on to them (I Corinthians 11:2) and exhorts the Thessalonian believers to do likewise (II Thessalonians 2:15) and to "keep away from" any professed believer who does not (3:6). Those three verses are the ones which have been typically cited as the "proof texts" for the authority of tradition.

However, the full picture of New Testament teaching about the role of tradition has another side to it; all of the other ten usages of the word (five of which are quotations from Jesus) are basically negative, and refer to the traditions of the Jewish rabbis, or in one instance in Colossians 2:8 to "human tradition" which is a source of deception that Paul wants his readers to reject. In Matthew 15:6 and Mark 7:13, Jesus warned that rabbinical tradition was being used to "nullify the word of God." So just because a given belief or practice has a long pedigree doesn't automatically render it God-pleasing. Clearly, how the New Testament writers view the authority of tradition depends on the content of the tradition.

Paul's three positive uses of the term obviously refer to a fixed body of oral material preserving the historical memory of Jesus' teaching and actions, plus the early church's understanding of the basic meaning of the gospel and the core theological principles that define Christian belief. This oral tradition underlies the New Testament, and would have remained viable for a few generations among believing communities close-knit enough to pass traditions on orally; but would gradually have been supplanted by the written New Testament texts (especially, and more rapidly, in congregations where the membership was mainly discontinuous, and geographically removed, from the early Palestinian center of the faith). Insofar as these are legitimate "proof texts" for the authority of tradition, I would contend that it's the authority of this tradition, and no other, that they establish.

P. Pherson wrote: "The Catholic church follows many traditions. Some with their beginnings far back into the old testament, many from the new testament, and many still from the actions and practices of the early church, when the bible was still letters being passed around, and no formal book had been compiled yet. And only with deep prayer and consideration would they consider changing one (Such as saying the mass in English and not Latin, which still vexes many older school Catholics). The hope, and the belief is, that such things are guided by the Holy Spirit, and performed under the due authority that has been placed on them, which was imbued upon Peter with the Keys, and the loosing and binding authority Christ bestowed."

As this description indicates, the term "tradition" as used in Roman Catholic theology means more than a fixed body of oral beliefs and practices handed down from the past (which is what's basically meant by the word paradosis). It includes the idea that the "tradition" can be authoritatively added to, or even changed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the generations go by. It's not clear that the definition of paradosis in normal first-century speech would have allowed that concept; and in my opinion not very likely that Paul and his readers would have used a revised definition that included it, since they generally expected Christ's return to take place in their own lifetime, not generations (or millennia!) later.

Of course, all denominations hold many beliefs and practices which can be demonstrated to have originated long after the time of the New Testament, but which have by now become traditional. And no one would argue that all of them are necessarily wrong or harmful. But conceding that point is not the same thing as saying that this kind of evolving tradition has co-equal authority with the Bible, which would mean, in practice, that whatever is now being believed or done has to be right by definition, and can't be critiqued. That's obviously incorrect, because different Christian denominations hold to directly contradictory beliefs and practices. In those cases, at least one group's tradition has to have taken a wrong turn. (Jesus pointed out that this sort of wrong turn had happened with Jewish rabbinical tradition in places.)

Patrick's post also indicates an important qualification of the idea of an evolving tradition; not every innovation in belief and practice, originated by just anybody anytime, is to be considered as authoritative. Rather, that recognition is only to be extended to those new developments that are "guided by the Holy Spirit," and which are endorsed by the "due authority" of church leaders. (This latter point is referred to in Roman Catholic theology as the church's "magisterium;" I don't know if the Greek Orthodox, Coptic, and other Eastern churches use that term, but they have an equivalent concept.) All Christians would accept the first condition; but disagreement arises over the second one. That church leaders have authority insofar as they're being genuinely accountable to God in Christ is clear from Hebrews 13:17; but there can be honest questions about how automatically, absolutely and infallibly any given leader may be acting with that sort of transparent accountability, and it's appropriate to air those questions when they fairly arise. It's true that most (though not all --see Acts 20:30) people entrusted with Christian leadership mean well; but that's not the same thing as always being right. (And again, the objective standard of measure for rightness has to be conformity to the Bible.)

All three of the Synoptic Gospels record a conversation between Jesus and his disciples, in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, where he asked who people were saying that he was. Having received various answers, he asked, "Who do you say I am?" Speaking for the rest, Peter affirmed him as the Messiah. Only Matthew goes on, in 16:17-19 (the verses Patrick alluded to above) to record that in response, Jesus blessed Peter for truly stating a revelation from God. He then stated, "And I tell you that you are Peter [he probably used the Aramaic form Cephas; both words mean "rock"], and on this rock I will build my church [again probably speaking in Aramaic, and using an equivalent to the Hebrew word for the assembly of God's people; writing in Greek, Matthew translates it correctly as the word we translate into English as "church"], and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." It would be fair to say that the entire subsequent theology of the magisterium is erected on the foundation of this text; so the interpretation of the Lord's words here is very crucial to the whole question of the authority of tradition (and who, if anybody, gets to authoritatively interpret or modify tradition.) Given that this post is already very long, I'm going to tackle further discussion of that topic later, as time permits.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus clearly addresses Peter as an individual. He calls attention to his nickname, "Rock," and says that Jesus' church or assembly, his community of faith, will be built on this rock. The image of building something on a rock suggests building on a foundation. There are two other New Testament references to the foundation on which the church is built.

I Corinthians 3:9 speaks of the church at Corinth, and by implication the church as a whole, as "God's building." Paul goes on to say that he, as an expert builder, is laying a foundation for the church by God's grace, on which others are building; but that builders must be careful how they build, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (3:11). So in this passage, the church is built on Christ.

In Ephesians 2:20, the foundation on which the church is built is said to be "the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Since prophets speak the counsel of God, the reference to prophets here includes their message (as embodied particularly in the Old Testament, as it speaks of Christ), and the inclusion of Christ Jesus and the apostles in the foundation would also embrace their divinely-inspired teachings as part of the foundation.

None of these texts contradicts the others; rather, they supplement each other. The Church is built on Peter, as part of its foundation; but not to the exclusion of Christ, the other apostles, and the prophets, and Christ's role is the paramount one. And their role in the foundation of the church is inseparable from their message; so, it's fair to say that "the apostles and prophets" takes in the Old and New Testaments as part of the foundation. In the same way, Peter is included in the foundation in Matthew 18 because of his confession of Jesus as Messiah --he's singled out there because he's the first (and at that point, only!) apostle who's listened to God's revelation about that. (So the debate about whether the "rock" is Peter or Peter's confession misses the point; his confession is a crucial part of who he is in Christ.)

There was a pastor in my youth that explained this as Christ being the cornerstone (without which there would be no Church) and Peter built the foundation of the Church around it.

If builders do not follow the lines and strength of the cornerstone, then the building will fail. Failure can be a total collapse of the structure or (and perhaps worse) it can be a building that is abandoned to slowly decay, becoming an eyesore that invites only disdain.

Kevin wrote: "If builders do not follow the lines and strength of the cornerstone, then the building will fail. Failure can be a total collapse of the structure or (and perhaps worse) it can be a building that is abandoned to slowly decay, becoming an eyesore that invites only disdain."

Yes, that's a very good summary of the meaning and importance of Christ's central role as the cornerstone of the Church! (And of course that role goes beyond mere use of his name, or reference to him as the historical founder; rather, it's inseparable from his continuing, resurrected life as the Church's actual head and Lord, and from his explicit commands and teachings as the Church's God-given blueprint and marching orders.)

As we saw in message 7, Jesus' statement about the foundation of the Church is only one of four assertions he makes in Matthew 16:18-19. The second one is that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. This is actually a promise with a very clear, simple and straightforward meaning, conveyed in language which Jesus' hearers, and the subsequent original readers, would easily have understood.

In the pagan religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, names were given to the supposed places where the souls of the dead went after death; among the Semites, it was called Sheol. In the Old Testament, though the Israelites didn't believe in the pagan myths, they borrowed and reinterpreted the term; so the realm, or state, of the dead becomes "Sheol." In the Greek language, the abode of the dead was called "Hades," so the LXX translators used that as their term for Sheol. So, for Greek-speaking Jews and God-fearers, and first-century Christians, Hades = the state of the dead (and is paired with death in verses like Revelation 20:12-14).

Gates, of course, are a means of allowing, but also controlling, ingress and egress. Death, of course, doesn't have literal "gates;" but every human enters it, and apart from the miraculous action of God, doesn't come out. So, in Jesus' metaphor here, it has one-way gates, which let its captives in, but not out. But Jesus has come into the world to initiate the resurrection, by his own rising from the dead. Here he promises that his people will rise with him; the gates of death will not prevail against us to hold us in.

Matthew 16:18 says nothing less, and nothing more, than this. It promises the Church's eternal victory over death; but it says nothing about, and does not guarantee, the idea that the members or leaders of the Church, either as a whole or in large parts of it, can never be theologically mistaken about anything.

To consider it out of order, the final statement Jesus makes in these verses is that whatever Peter binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. The exact same promise is made in Matthew 18:18, except that there, in the context of 18:1, it's made to the disciples as a group, and follows directly upon v.17, where Jesus gives directions for the role of the local church in dealing with sin by its members. Again, this is a case where Scripture clarifies, rather than contradicts, other Scripture. This power to bind and loose is given to the Church, the community of those who by faith recognize Jesus as Messiah. In Matthew 16, Peter is the first, and at that point only, disciple to make that confession, so there he embodies and personifies the church. But the power is the Church's, not Peter's as an individual. He receives it on behalf of all those who will make the same confession, across the centuries to come.

Jewish theological vocabulary used "binding and loosing" in the sense of permitting and forbidding. So this is a grant of moral authority to the Church. But the Church is the organic family of those genuinely saved by Christ, who have honestly repented of sin and act under the moral guidance of the Holy Spirit. A close reading of I Corinthians 5 and II Corinthians 2:5-11, where Paul discusses a case of church discipline in action, makes it clear that it has to be guided by the Spirit, and that this guidance will be recognized by the genuinely faithful. So the authority is granted to God's people, to enforce God's rules of what's forbidden and permitted. It's not a grant of authority to disobedient apostates to vote themselves into power in some human-organized "church" and then make up their own rules and claim that God is obliged to go along with them; and none of Jesus' original hearers would have imagined that he intended it to be understood that way. The principle here is that authority from God can be exercised only in accordance with God's will, not in direct contravention of it, and that the Holy Spirit effectively guides God's people to know the difference.

Matthew 18:19 is a single sentence, and Jesus' statement about binding and loosing is made in the last part of it. In the first part, he says he "will give" (not is now giving, but rather will give in the future) Peter the "keys" of the kingdom of God. ("Kingdom of heaven" is Matthew's first-century Jewish euphemism for the latter, the Jews being unwilling to actually say the word "God" lest they say it "in vain.") In Matthew 11:11-15, Jesus had already declared that this future kingdom was already in some sense present since the ministry of John the Baptist, and that humans could now "lay hold of" it.

To hold the "keys" (literal or metaphorical; here they're the latter) to something is to be able to enter it yourself, and to unlock it for others to enter. (In this context, it's not about locking people out; sinful humanity is already locked out from the kingdom, but Jesus ministry is about unlocking the doors.) Since we have seen that the second part of this sentence grants authority, through Peter, to the Church as a whole, the most reasonable inference is that the first part should be understood in the same fashion.

Entrance into God's kingdom is not through a physical key that opens a physical lock, but rather through faith in the gospel of Jesus as God's Messiah, a gospel committed to the Church. That gospel is the key to the kingdom; we enter it ourselves through faith in the gospel, and we unlock the doors of the kingdom for others by preaching the gospel to them. Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-41 is the initial fulfillment of Jesus' promise here.

The interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 outlined in my last few posts, in my opinion, is simple, straightforward, and directly based on the way Jesus' hearers, and Matthew's original readers, would have understood the language used. It is consistent with the general teaching of the New Testament as a whole; and it does not read into these two verses ideas and concepts which the text itself does not support. If others would read anything more into the text, I would say that the burden of proof is on them.

To summarize the crucial points made so far, the New Testament does validate the authority of the earliest core of first-century Christian tradition, the orally-transmitted paradosis that underlay the common life, teaching and gospel proclamation of the Christian community before the New Testament was written and collected. But it's also fair to say that, a.) the New Testament now largely incorporates it in written form, and b.) by now, no continuous surviving body of oral tradition, transmitted from parents to children or preachers/teachers to congregations, with no reference whatsoever to subsequent writings or external sources, can still be identified as recognizably existing and dating back to the first century. Even by the very early centuries, Christian belief, teaching/preaching and practice was being defined by appeal to biblical and other texts more so than to oral tradition, and the former can be said to have supplanted the latter.

As Patrick pointed out in reference to the Roman Catholic Church, there are many traditional beliefs and practices that are observed, some going back to the Old or New Testaments, others thought to have originated in the first-century church, and others that have developed later. (His example of the use of Latin as the required liturgical language, even in congregations where it's not the vernacular, is an instance of this third type.) This could also be said of every denomination. While these are not included in what Paul called paradosis, they're still "traditional," in that by now they have long pedigrees, and feel comfortable in the parts of the Church where they're practiced.

The key fact here, though, is that the pedigree and the comfort does not in itself constitute an unquestionable proof of divine authority for any given tradition, that justifies treating it as a command of God to which every believer must comply. Any tradition has to be tried against the yardstick of compatibility with the Bible, and put to the (more subjective) test of the leading of the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, some traditions can pass muster by these two measures, but some cannot. But in either case, my opinions (and other's opinions) are not absolute truth on a par with Scripture.

Some may appeal to the authority of the "magisterium," or its equivalent, as a third measure for the validity of a tradition (and may place that third measure on a par with Scripture). But to my mind, Matthew 16:18-19 will not support that position. Church leaders may err at times in their assessments of a belief or practice (as Peter did on occasion; see Galatians 2:11-14). Their assessments should be respected and taken seriously, but they don't replace or trump the testimony of Scripture and the Spirit.