We know this tradition from both inspired and uninspired documents, through ritual and prayer (think ‘the sign of the cross,’ for example), and the Church’s collective memory expressed in canonical decisions and even in art, archaeology, and architecture. This tradition does not grow or change. It is the deposit of faith, the objective content of revelation handed on to the Church.
But, secondly, there is Tradition in a broader but equally authoritative sense – the authoritative interpretation of that deposit of faith handed on by the Church’s Magisterium. The Nicene definition or the Chalcedonian definition, for example, are explications of the deposit of faith, but obviously not found literally within that deposit. But they are now fully authoritative Tradition. Not because Christ delivered the Nicene Creed, but because those authorized to speak in his name did so.
Finally, there is “small-t” tradition, which are simply cultural or regional accretions, prayers or rituals or writings which are witnesses to the “great tradition,” but do not themselves possess the authority either of the Magisterium or the apostles. Such tradition is valuable – because it is a witness to the great tradition, but it can be dispensed with or changed at the discretion of the Magisterium.
For the discussion to proceed, I think it is very important to identify which type of tradition is under discussion. We need to avoid equivocation.
go here : http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/02/on-the-usefulness-of-tradition-a-response-to-recent-objections/
Here is just a partial quote from the above:
The substantive dispute between Protestants and Catholics is not over the usefulness of Tradition, therefore, but over its authority. Does Tradition transmit the deposit of faith in a way that authoritatively conditions my interpretation of Holy Scripture and of the faith? Or, does my interpretation of Scripture stand in judgment of Tradition? We can only answer this with reference to two other questions: “What provision did Christ make for the transmission of the Christian faith? And with what authority did he invest it?”
Christ gave very specific instructions concerning the transmission of the Christian faith. First, He instituted the Church’s liturgy, and ordered that it be handed on in perpetuity. (Luke 22: 19-20; John 20: 21-23). Second, He committed His body of oral teaching, including instructions about baptism, to the disciples (the eleven), and commanded that they teach it to all nations. With this command He included a promise of divine assistance. (Matthew 28:18-20) Third, He assigned the Church the responsibility of rendering binding decisions, and promised that heaven would confirm those decisions. (Matt 16:18; 18:18)
When it comes to the apostles, we find that they transmitted each of these elements to posterity. Paul includes the elements of the liturgy as part of the deposit of faith. (1 Corinthians 11:23-24.). The elders at Jerusalem considered their disciplinary decisions to reflect the central doctrines of the faith, and to be guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15) And, the apostle entrusts the charge of handing on the faith to successors. Again, this charge is accompanied by the promise of divine assistance. (2 Timothy 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:2).
There is only one part of Tradition that the apostles do not mention. They completely ignore the formation of the New Testament canon. The closest they come is the reference to “Paul’s Letters” in 2 Peter 3:16, but this hardly constitutes a doctrine of the Canon. As far as we know, neither Jesus nor the apostles had any concept of a New Testament Canon serving as the primary vehicle for the transmission of the Christian faith. Anyone who says otherwise depends neither on Scripture, nor ancient Tradition, but upon modern innovation.".............
.........Crucially, Scripture contains the very words of Christ. There can be no question of teaching or preaching contrary to Scripture.
But, ironically, the one who places his interpretation of Scripture over Tradition destroys the authority of both. It is only through Tradition that Scripture can even be a final authority. This is because there is always an interpretive gap between the words of Scripture and the understanding of the reader/hearer. How do I know that my interpretation of Scripture is what God really meant? I can only know if I rely on the interpretive method established by Christ, if I rely on an interpretive method that possesses divine authority.
Let me illustrate. Consider the exception clause in Matthew 19: 9. Christ permits divorce in the case of πορνείᾳ. What exactly does Christ mean by “πορνείᾳ?” And, how am I to understand “divorce” in this passage relative to the parallel passages in the synoptics, and in the teachings of St. Paul? Scripture cannot possibly rule my behavior, it cannot be an authority, if I do not know what it means. How, then, do I proceed. Do I rely on my own lexical, exegetical skill to interpret this difficult passage? Do I rely on experts? Or do I defer to Tradition?
The Fathers of the Church gave a clear interpretation of the teaching on divorce and that interpretation has been confirmed by the canonical Tradition of the Church for millennia. If I rely upon Tradition as a divine authority established by Christ, then I can clearly, and unambiguously obey the unique authority of Scripture. If I reject Tradition, however, can I be certain that my interpretation possesses divine authority? It is only Tradition that allows Scripture to be a final authority.
In conclusion, Sacred Tradition is very useful. Christ established it for the authoritative transmission of the faith and the sanctification of the Church. He also made us a promise of His divine assistance, to accompany the transmission of the faith and to guarantee its integrity. Tradition is an important witness to the antiquity, unity, and Catholicity of the faith. It conveys content that Scripture and the extraordinary Magisterium may not have addressed. Finally, reliance on Tradition does not diminish the unique authority of Scripture. Scripture alone contains the inspired words of God. Therefore, we reverence Scripture and accord it a unique place in our faith and worship. But Tradition is what allows Scripture to guide me, to rest assured that I have understood it aright."from comment one on this post:
"First, if the Church, the Body of Christ, is to be one, all Christians must have the same “formal, proximate object of faith” (FPOF). That consists in whatever ensemble of secondary authorities embody and present primary divine authority, in such a way as to transmit divine revelation clearly to us for the assent of faith as distinct from that of opinion. On the Catholic account, the FPOF is the triad Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium, whose elements are understood as mutually attesting and interdependent. Thus the first two transmit the content of divine revelation to us, and the last, by virtue of the charism of infallibility, ensures their correct interpretation. But the last does not interpret either of the first two in isolation from the other. For the reasons you cite, each of the first two serves as an indispensable interpretive context for the other. Thus neither the content nor the role of either is reducible to those of the other, even in principle. That relationship of mutual dependence-in-difference is what cries out for an interpretive authority. And so the popular conservative-Protestant notion that Scripture is formally, not just materially, “sufficient” for transmitting the content of divine revelation is false simply as a matter of historical and literary fact, never mind theology."
"......... That is precisely what so frustrates many thoughtful (and not-so-thoughtful) conservative Protestants. The essence of their position is the belief that the content of divine revelation as such can be reliably known independently of ecclesial authority, so that the individual believer can judge the deliverances of such authority in terms of such prior and independent knowledge. That not only eliminates the Magisterium as a trumping interpretive authority, but also blinds them to the role that Tradition itself plays in their interpretations. Yet it is only by virtue of Tradition, as interpreted by the Church, that we even have a biblical canon in the first place, and that it has the content it does. And the theological differences between conservative Protestants can largely be accounted for by the different weights they respectively, and often unwittingly, assign to other aspects of Tradition."
also really good explanation here ; Dei Verbum. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
below is a long quote from part of this:
7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)
But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).
8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
also comment 97a here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/mary-as-co-redemptrix/#comment-46320
You seem to be approaching the question as though Scripture alone is the authoritative source for the Church’s doctrine. But in the Catholic paradigm, not only Scripture but Tradition as well is authoritative. So is the Church. See David Anders’s recent post on the subject of Tradition. See also sections 7-10 of Dei Verbum. From the Protestant perspective, Pope Pius XI is just another man with mere opinions like everyone else. But from the perspective of the Catholic paradigm, Pope Pius XI was a successor of St. Peter, and a steward of the keys of the Kingdom which Christ gave to St. Peter. As the Vicar of Christ we are to give religious assent to his teaching, because Christ guides and teaches the Church through him.
from comment 48 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/marys-immaculate-conception/#comment-48726
The Apostolic deposit of faith comes down to us in two forms: written and oral:
For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (Dei Verbum, 9)
Scripture alone is God-breathed, but the unwritten Sacred Tradition also has divine authority, and the two complement each other, illuminate each other, and together form the sacred deposit of the word of God:
Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (Dei Verbum, 10)
You asked:
Where is that deposit of the Apostolic Tradition so that I may read it and access it?
Fundamentally, it is “oral.” That’s what ties it necessarily to a community, and does not allow it absolutely to exist entirely as an abstract set of truths, severed or severable from any particular community, as I explained in “The Tradition and the Lexicon.” To demand that it be written in order to be real, or in order to be known, is performatively to presuppose that there can be no oral Tradition, and that sacred Tradition can be found only in Scripture, and thus to beg the question. However, the development (I spoke of above) of Tradition can be discerned in the Church Fathers and Doctors. In the case of the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, that development can be seen in the sources cited in the body of the post at the top of this page, and found in more detail in the books by Luigi Gambero, i.e. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin in Patristic Thought, andMary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin Mary In The Thought of Medieval Latin Theologian
from comment 51
How else would you identify ‘apostolic tradition’ other than what they wrote?
Imagine asking that question in AD 110. The very question presupposes that Christ founded no Church, and that the Apostles did not propagate this Church throughout the world, OR, that if they did, it was no longer in existence by AD 110, or entirely untrustworthy as a witness to the content of the Apostolic deposit. So notice the very loaded theological presuppositions in the question you are asking here.
from comment 55:
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (Dei Verbum, 8)
from comment 60:
First, as Michael pointed out, your stance seems to be “unless I have independent evidence that the Apostles actually said doctrine x, I will not believe x or submit to the Church’s teaching that x is part of Apostolic Tradition.” One problem with that stance is that it entails the following dilemma. Either that stance applies likewise to the Apostles regarding the teaching of Jesus, or it does not. Consider the first horn of that dilemma. If that stance applies likewise to the Apostles regarding the teaching of the Jesus, then unless you have objective independent evidence (other than the Apostles’ testimony) concerning Jesus’s teaching, you will not believe what the Apostles say concerning Jesus’ teaching. However, Jesus did not leave any writings. So far as we know, the only time He wrote, He wrote on the ground with his finger, twice (John 8:6, and 8:8). And that writing has not been preserved, so far as we know. So, in that case, you know nothing concerning what Jesus said. Now consider the second horn of the dilemma. If you *do not* apply that stance to the Apostles, but you *do* apply that stance to the bishops whom the Apostles ordained, then you are being ad hoc. So the dilemma entails that either you lose all knowledge of Jesus, or you are being ad hoc.
Second, this same stance of disbelieving anything regarding the Gospel unless you have independent evidence that the Apostles said it presupposes that the Holy Spirit has not guided the Church in the developmental unfolding of the Apostolic deposit over time. That’s not a safe assumption, because the Holy Spirit (being omnipotent) could easily have done such a thing. And if He did, your stance would prevent you from accepting this unfolding, and would thereby cause you to reject the very working of the Holy Spirit. “You may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:39) So this stance you have taken is not a safe stance if you want to be sure not to be found fighting against God.
Third, if the “you” in “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me” (Luke 10:16) is not limited only to the Apostles, but extends also to their successors, then the act of faith is not reduced to believing the words of Scripture, but includes believing the Church, as St. Thomas explains — see “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church.” In that case, the stance of refusing to believe the Church unless one can independently verify the truth of her teachings is a form of rationalism that falls short of true faith.
from an article here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/what-therefore-god-has-joined-together-divorce-and-the-sacrament-of-marriage/#comment-48820
The early Protestants generally assumed that the entirety of the Apostolic deposit was either contained explicitly in the Scripture, or was logically demonstrable from what was explicitly stated in Scripture. That assumption is itself neither contained explicitly in Scripture nor logically demonstrable from what is explicitly stated in Scripture. So according to its own criterion it is at best a man-made tradition. But Scripture can be rightly interpreted and understood only in the context of the Tradition within which it was transmitted. Apart from that Tradition, many things contained implicitly in Scripture are veiled, though in the light of that Tradition, they can be seen in Scripture. I have written about the Catholic understanding of the relation between Scripture and Tradition in the section titled “Scripture and Tradition” in my dialogue with Michael Horton.
end of quote
another quote from that article:
How do we find the Apostolic tradition in the Church Fathers? Whenever the Church Fathers provide us with a moral consensus on a particular question, we can know that this belongs to the Apostolic Tradition.48 To reject the moral consensus of the Church Fathers is to undermine the very claim to be faithful to the Tradition. That is in part because rejecting the moral consensus of the Church Fathers is exactly what it would look like toreject absolutely the authority of Tradition.
This is why, for example, the Reformed rejection of the unanimous patristic consensus concerning baptismal regeneration is problematic for the Reformed claim to be faithful to the Tradition. But as our study above shows, the Church Fathers provide a moral consensus concerning the indissolubility of marriage. So just as in the case of baptismal regeneration, the Reformed (and Protestant) rejection of the moral consensus in the Church Fathers concerning the indissolubility of marriage between baptized persons is equally problematic, because it calls into question the Reformed claim to be following the early Church Tradition allegedly abandoned by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, and exposes Reformed confessionalism for the biblicism that it actually is. In addition, this deviation from the patristic teaching on this subject calls into question the correctness of the Protestant notion that marriage is not a sacrament. That is, if as I have shown, we cannot trust the Reformed claim that the dissolubility of Christian marriage is in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition known and practiced by the early Church, then the Reformed denial of the sacramentality of marriage is likewise called into question. The sacramentality of marriage is what grounds and guards its absolute indissolubility; rejecting the sacramentality of marriage opens the door to denying the absolute indissolubility of Christian marriage. As John Witte points out, “Because they [i.e. the early Protestants] rejected the sacramental concept of marriage as an eternal enduring bond, the reformers introduced divorce in the modern sense, on grounds of adultery, desertion, cruelty, or frigidity, with a subsequent right to remarry at least for the innocent party.”49
from comment 139 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-61262
Tradition is located in the writings and liturgy and practice of the Church throughout the centuries, not just the Magisterium, but also in the writings of Doctors and Fathers, monks, nuns, hermits, and all the saints, religious and lay
comment 61 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/how-not-to-defend-the-reformation-why-protestants-need-the-antichrist-2/#comment-61665 :
Thanks so much for writing and commenting. Let me answer your question, and then pose a few of my own.
First of all, you ask – “Why would tradition be necessary when almost every question about the faith is answered in the Epistles.”
Three points:
1) The most important question we need to answer is “How does Jesus intend the Christian Faith to be transmitted?” When I pose that question, I note that Jesus never directs us to the epistles as the final and sufficient source for the transmission or explication of the Christian faith. Instead, Christ EXPLICITLY commends tradition (i.e., “Hand this on”) as the principle of transmission. Consider: “Do this in memory of Me,” “Go, therefore, into all Nations and teach everything I have commanded you,” “Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” “I will be with you till the end of the age,” “whoever hears you, hears me,” etc.
The very first thing Christ explicitly commands for the transmission of the Christian faith is the liturgy – “Do this in my memory.”
Paul tells us that this rite is, itself, an authoritative proclamation of the Christian faith, “As often as you eat . . . you proclaim.”
Paul also tells us that this liturgical rite was received, orally, from the Lord, and to be handed on in perpetuity (i.e., a tradition):
“The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you, is that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was being betrayed, took bread . . .”
So, when I look at the teaching of Christ and of the apostles, I find the principle of tradition – liturgical, oral, and apostolic – to be well established as the means of transmitting the CHristian faith. However, I see no word about a canon of epistles. I also see that Christ applies promises of authority and divine assistance to that transmission.
Furthermore, When I look at the actual history of the early Church, and to doctrinal decision making, I see the principle of living, binding apostolic authority at work. (I.e., Acts 15)
2) I’m going to have to take issue with your claim that almost every question about the Christian faith was answered in the epistles. Let me illustrate: Could you please show me, from the epistles, which books are to be contained in the canon of Scripture? This is a crucial point of Christian doctrine, but is nowhere addressed in the epistles. Or, how about the celebration of the liturgy? Are all the necessary elements detailed in the epistles? Think about this for a minute. Does the text even specify which elements are necessary and essential vs. those which might be variable? We know that Paul exhorts Corinth to view catholicity as a binding norm “We have no other practice, nor do the Churches of God,” but he applies this principle only to the case of head coverings. What about the epiclesis? The proper context for baptism? The proper liturgical prayers? I mention the epiclesis because it is a part of the liturgy that the Church fathers said was of apostolic origin, though it is not mentioned in the text – and it is something the Reformers retained. The context of baptism – because this was bitterly disputed by the Reformers – though no mention is made in the text. I could go on with further examples.
3) Finally, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct – the epistles do address every question. Given that Christians disagree about the meaning of the epistles – how do you know when those disagreements are legitimate variations to be tolerated (theological opinion), and when they amount to matters of dogma – that distinguish true Christian faith from counterfeit? Would you, for example, consider the difference between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals to be a matter of legitimate opinion or one of dogma? Both groups appeal to Scripture? For my part, I side with the Trinitarians mostly on the authority of the Council of Nicaea – not, rather, because of my private interpretation of Scripture.
Now – you assert that Luther was objecting to clearly erroneous teaching on the part of the Catholic Church. I take it you are referring to the doctrine of justification. I’d like to point out that this is another one of those cases that does not appear so clear to me. When I read St. Paul, I don’t see Luther’s doctrine. Nor did 1500 years of Christian tradition up to Luther. Does this mean that justification by faith alone is a matter of legitimate theological opinion? Or is it dogma? And, if it’s dogma, then how do you account for its absence from 1500 years of Christian tradition?
So, all-in-all, we need tradition because Christ commands it and reason and experience demand it
from comment 785 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
As per your comment, #780 – Let me address the tradition question first.
Whenever we have disputes about the content or meaning of the Christian revelation, I think the most important question we can ask is, “What provision (if any) did Christ make for resolving such disputes? What provision (if any) did he make for the authoritative transmission of Christian faith?”
And, when I pose that question, I see that Christ nowhere directs us to the 66 book Protestant Canon of Scripture as the authoritative means of transmitting the faith or resolving questions of its interpretation.
There are a few places in the historical record where Christ explicitly addresses the transmission of the faith:
Luke 10:16: Whoever hears you, hears me.
Matt. 28: (to the 11) – Go there fore into all nations, teaching everything I have commanded you, . . . and I will be with you.”
John 20:21: As the Father sends me, I send you . . . Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven.
Luke 22: 19: “Do this in remembrance of me.”
Regarding this last command, Paul tells us that this remembrance is, in part, a form of proclamation – that is, a means of transmitting the gospel: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Finally, Paul considers this transmission to be authoritative, and perpetual, and a prime example of what Catholics mean by tradition: “The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you . . .” (1 corinthians 11:23)
Then there is the matter of interpreting that deposit of faith.
What provision do we find in Scritpure:
Acts 15 – the principle of apostolic authority, in council, as the voice of the Holy Spirit.
And, the principle of catholicity: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor. 11:16)
So, all in all, I find the concept of tradition to be very biblical. But I find the notion of “Sola Scriptura,” defined as the final authority of the 66 book Protestant canon – to be very unbiblical.
excellent comment here by Bryan C. on St. Irenaeus and the tradition of the apostles comment 144
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/sola-scriptura-a-dialogue-between-michael-horton-and-bryan-cross/comment-page-3/#comment-37495
see also comment 271 and following here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/
answer to some questions here at comment 106 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/#comment-77429 below
In what ways do Catholics separate the function of Scripture and Tradition? For example, Catholics read the Bible in the liturgy, but a papal encyclical wouldn’t be presented in this way. (True, the Nicene Creed is confessed, but even that differs in presentation from Scripture reading.) So they seem to me to differ in function though not in authority. Am I right?
Scripture is itself part of the Apostolic Tradition. So the more accurate distinction is between the written Tradition, and the unwritten Tradition. Scripture is the God-breathed words of God, but the wording of the unwritten Tradition is not God-breathed, though it too is divine in origin. For a good explanation of the role of Scripture in the liturgy, see Scott Hahn’s Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy; see also paragraphs 52-71 of Verbum Domini. For a brief overview of the Catholic understanding of the relation of Scripture and Tradition, see “VIII: Scripture and Tradition” in my reply to Michael Horton, and paragraphs 17 and 18 of Verbum Domini.
Also, why do Catholics venerate the divine Scriptures as they venerate the Body of the Lord, and what does this mean?
We venerate things that are in some sense sacred or divine. Scripture is the word of God to man (not to be confused with the Eternally Begotten Logos, who is the Second Person of the Trinity). Hence we venerate Scripture. But the Bible is not God Himself. Hence we do not give latria (adoration) to the Bible itself. The Eucharist is the Logos Himself; hence we do give latria to the consecrated Host and Precious Blood.
[the link he gives VIII is really helpful]
also this comment here 88 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/world-vision-and-the-quest-for-protestant-unity/
I think we've got a couple of different threads to untangle here. The first is whether or not there are apostolic traditions known to us outside of Scripture. The second is what those traditions are. And the third is how reliable those traditions are.
Regarding the first question, I think you and I agree entirely. There are apostolic traditions known to us from non-scriptural sources. You reference the Papias tradition.
Regarding the second question - there are clearly traditions from antiquity that the Fathers held to be apostolic. St. Basil gives a list in his book On the Holy Spirit. Many of these are liturgical.
regarding the 3rd question - are these traditions reliable? You clearly don't think that they are. that's fine. There is no prima facie reason that you should accept any testimony from antiquity without question. But that is another discussion that we cannot have apart from a normative conception of the transmission of Christian faith.
That is why we have to answer - How does Christ intend for the Christian faith to be transmitted? Did he authorize the principle of scriptural transmission or did he authorize the principle of transmission via authorized representatives? The only reason to give the assent of faith either to scripture or to tradition is if that tradition possesses divine authority.
I, myself, would never submit to Scripture on the strength of Papias' testimony alone. Perhaps Papias was a liar? Perhaps he was mistaken? i can only consider Papias in light of all the motives of credibility for Christian faith.
So when you say we have no evidence of the interecession of saints from the apostolic era, this statement is clearly false. We do have evidence and testimony from Christian and non-Christian sources. (See the Jeremias text listed above). But you are perfectly free to discount that evidence as unreliable. But Whether or not God preserved the theology and spirituality of christian antiquity is a theological as well as an historical question. one of the things that made me Catholic was realizing that if I rejected the testimony of Christian antiquity, then I could have no confidence that any account of christian faith possessed divine authority. If, however, I accepted that Christ intended the faith to be transmitted by tradition (which, of course, he says),and he gave a promise of divine assistance, then I had a basis for holding my assent of faith rationally.
from comment 111 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/04/ancient-marian-devotion/ :
This article by James Akin https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INSPIR.HTM I am not sure he is correct?--also this comment here 88 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/world-vision-and-the-quest-for-protestant-unity/
I know that “the teaching of Jesus is contained only in the text of the New Testament” is because this is the only record we have today of His teachings.
This is precisely what I dispute. I contend that we have many teachings from Jesus and from the apostles that are not contained in the text of the new testament.
St. Basil gives an impressive list of these in his book On the Holy Spirit. Many of them deal with liturgical rubrics.
I would also point to the doctrine concerning the apostolic origin of the New Testament books themselves. The bible nowhere teaches, for example, that the gospel of Mark is of apostolic origin.
And, again, I would point to what Tertullian and Ireneaus called The Rule of Faith – a set of “essentials,” an interpretive paradigm, that Tertullian and Ireneaus teach has been passed down by apostolic authority.
St. Basil gives an impressive list of these in his book On the Holy Spirit. Many of them deal with liturgical rubrics.
I would also point to the doctrine concerning the apostolic origin of the New Testament books themselves. The bible nowhere teaches, for example, that the gospel of Mark is of apostolic origin.
And, again, I would point to what Tertullian and Ireneaus called The Rule of Faith – a set of “essentials,” an interpretive paradigm, that Tertullian and Ireneaus teach has been passed down by apostolic authority.
We could go on.
Finally, what I mean about the 4th century Church –
The 4th century church handed on certain books as canonical – The New Testament.
The same fathers also handed on other extra-scriptural tradition that they held to be apostolic.
The 4th century church handed on certain books as canonical – The New Testament.
The same fathers also handed on other extra-scriptural tradition that they held to be apostolic.
Why would you trust their judgment about the new testament canon, but not their judgment about the apostolic origin of liturgical tradition?
from comment 131 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/
I think we've got a couple of different threads to untangle here. The first is whether or not there are apostolic traditions known to us outside of Scripture. The second is what those traditions are. And the third is how reliable those traditions are.
Regarding the first question, I think you and I agree entirely. There are apostolic traditions known to us from non-scriptural sources. You reference the Papias tradition.
Regarding the second question - there are clearly traditions from antiquity that the Fathers held to be apostolic. St. Basil gives a list in his book On the Holy Spirit. Many of these are liturgical.
regarding the 3rd question - are these traditions reliable? You clearly don't think that they are. that's fine. There is no prima facie reason that you should accept any testimony from antiquity without question. But that is another discussion that we cannot have apart from a normative conception of the transmission of Christian faith.
That is why we have to answer - How does Christ intend for the Christian faith to be transmitted? Did he authorize the principle of scriptural transmission or did he authorize the principle of transmission via authorized representatives? The only reason to give the assent of faith either to scripture or to tradition is if that tradition possesses divine authority.
I, myself, would never submit to Scripture on the strength of Papias' testimony alone. Perhaps Papias was a liar? Perhaps he was mistaken? i can only consider Papias in light of all the motives of credibility for Christian faith.
So when you say we have no evidence of the interecession of saints from the apostolic era, this statement is clearly false. We do have evidence and testimony from Christian and non-Christian sources. (See the Jeremias text listed above). But you are perfectly free to discount that evidence as unreliable. But Whether or not God preserved the theology and spirituality of christian antiquity is a theological as well as an historical question. one of the things that made me Catholic was realizing that if I rejected the testimony of Christian antiquity, then I could have no confidence that any account of christian faith possessed divine authority. If, however, I accepted that Christ intended the faith to be transmitted by tradition (which, of course, he says),and he gave a promise of divine assistance, then I had a basis for holding my assent of faith rationally.
This calls to mind what St. Basil (329-379 AD) wrote in “De Spiritu Sancto” about those who would denigrate Unwritten Tradition in their attempt to deny the Holy Spirit was God:
n. 25:
n. 25:
The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine” is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,— of course bona fide debtors— they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.
n. 66
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force … For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals … For instance … Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. … And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents … the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity…
n. 67
Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church … While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim 3:16) is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;— which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;— a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?
n. 71
… For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” (1 Cor 11:2) and “Hold fast the traditions which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” (2 Thess 2:15) One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word … For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” (Job 8:9)
He explains: "A critic might say, "Aren't you unequally yoking Apostolic Scripture with Apostolic Tradition if one is inspired and the other isn't?" Not at all. Even though Apostolic Tradition is not inspired, it "is" infallible. God cannot teach error, so anything he taught the apostles is automatically infallible. Apostolic Tradition is therefore infallible. I just have to be able to isolate it." and a whole lot more in this article
one guy in Catholic answers writes http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1376455
Is the inspired Word of God, scripture, more important that the taught Word of God, Tradition? Of course not. The very Gospel that Jesus preached is the pure Word of God. Yet it is not inspired, because He didn't write it. It is still the Word of God, without error, which we must live by. The notion that only what is inspired is the Word of God comes from Protestantism. Protestants don't know the content of the Gospel, because they don't have the Word of God handed down in Sacred Tradition. Thus, they are forced to equate what is inpired alone (scripture) with the Word of God. Unfortunately, scripture does not teach the Gospel. Thus, they come up with thousands of different Gospels based on their understanding of scripture, which is basically salvation history. No one can learn the Gospel by studing only what is inspired. We can learn salvation history that way, but not the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. We can only learn the Gospel, by being taught the Gospel that was handed down in Sacred Tradition, through the Church.
CCC 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
CCC 81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"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."43
CCC 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
CCC 81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"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."43
CCC 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
see http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/02/on-the-usefulness-of-tradition-a-response-to-recent-objections/
and here https://www.readability.com/articles/lvqsyhrm or http://www.rosary-center.org/ll47n4.htm-- here follows an extended quote
"One major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the different way in which they view divine revelation. For most Protestant religions the only true source of divine revelation is the BIBLE, and its interpretation is left to the conscience of the individual Christian. For the Catholic Church, however, God’s revelation is found in SACRED TRADITION, understood as God’s revealed word handed down by the living teaching authority established by Christ in the Church. That includes both written tradition (Scripture)and unwritten tradition received from Christ and handed down orally by the apostles and their successors. The Church founded by Christ on Peter, and only that Church, has been empowered by Christ to interpret His teaching authoritatively in His name.
The word tradition is taken from the Latin word “tradere”- to hand down, to pass on. In this case it refers to a “handing down” of God’s revealed word from apostolic times to our own day. If we would take the word tradition in the broad sense, we could say that the Catholic Church derives it’s doctrines from tradition alone, understanding thereby the body of revealed truth (written & unwritten) handed down from the apostles. St. Paul seemed to understand it in this way when he wrote to Timothy to “hold to traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our letter” (2 Thes. 2:14). Even though a great part of that tradition has been committed to writing and is found in the inspired books of the Scriptures, the Catholic Church looks upon Tradition and Scripture, not as two separate sources of revelation, but as two different means of transmission of God’s revelation, forming a single deposit of faith. The Bible, then, is a part of Tradition, along with the unwritten instruction received from Christ and handed down by the apostles and their successors. Some writers refer to the revealed doctrines (written & unwritten) handed down by the apostles and their successors as the passive aspect of Tradition, and the living teaching authority (the magisterium) established by Christ to insure that His teaching would be handed down to succeeding ages in its integrity and without error, as its active aspect.
WHAT IS SACRED TRADITION
The word tradition is taken from the Latin word “tradere”- to hand down, to pass on. In this case it refers to a “handing down” of God’s revealed word from apostolic times to our own day. If we would take the word tradition in the broad sense, we could say that the Catholic Church derives it’s doctrines from tradition alone, understanding thereby the body of revealed truth (written & unwritten) handed down from the apostles. St. Paul seemed to understand it in this way when he wrote to Timothy to “hold to traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our letter” (2 Thes. 2:14). Even though a great part of that tradition has been committed to writing and is found in the inspired books of the Scriptures, the Catholic Church looks upon Tradition and Scripture, not as two separate sources of revelation, but as two different means of transmission of God’s revelation, forming a single deposit of faith. The Bible, then, is a part of Tradition, along with the unwritten instruction received from Christ and handed down by the apostles and their successors. Some writers refer to the revealed doctrines (written & unwritten) handed down by the apostles and their successors as the passive aspect of Tradition, and the living teaching authority (the magisterium) established by Christ to insure that His teaching would be handed down to succeeding ages in its integrity and without error, as its active aspect.
To understand the Catholic Church's teaching in regard to Sacred Tradition, we must consider several things:
a) Public revelation ceased with Christ and the apostles and evangelists who recorded His teachings;
b) Christ commissioned His apostles to preach;
c) Christ established a living teaching authority to safeguard the integrity of the gospel message, and to apply it with divine authority to succeeding ages;
d) The development of the gospel message is not new doctrine.
A) PUBLIC REVELATION ENDS WITH THE APOSTLES
God in his goodness and wisdom revealed Himself gradually through the prophets and patriarchs of the old Testament. But the fullness and completion of that revelation came through the Incarnation of the only-begotten Son of the Father who became man to redeem us, and to bring to completion the revelation of the Godhead and the divine plan of salvation. The message that Christ brought to mankind by His preaching, His deeds, His death and resurrection brings an end to publicrevelation, as opposed to private revelation, such as occurred in the apparitions of Our Lord and the saints to various persons throughout the Christian era. Referring to this, the second Vatican Council declared in the dogmatic constitution on Revelation:
“The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Verbum Dei, n.4).
(NOTE: It is only public revelation that we are bound in conscience to accept by virtue of the divine gift of faith.)
B) CHRIST COMMISSIONED THE APOSTLES TO PREACH
Our Blessed Lord left no written record behind Him, but rather ordered His apostles to hand down His teaching orally. He told them to preach the gospel to all nations: “Go and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19). Referring to this the second Vatican Council states:
“Christ the Lord, in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion, commissioned the apostles topreach to all men that gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and thus imparts to them divine gifts. . . . This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, by ordinances, handed down what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they learned through the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled too, by those apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing” (ibid. n.7).
The first gospel was written, however, some 20 years after the death of Christ, and the last gospel (that of John) was written at the end of the first century. That means that a whole generation of Christians knew nothing of the teaching of Christ, or the duties of the Christian life, except through the preaching of the apostles and their fellow-workers, - that is to say, except through Sacred Tradition. What is more, almost four hundred years elapsed before the inspired books of the New Testament were collected (by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) into one book. And even after that, since copies of the inspired books were transcribed laboriously by hand, there were extremely few copies available. And that scarcity lasted for almost another thousand years until the coming of the printing press in the fifteenth century.
Much that Christ said and did is not recorded in the Scriptures, as St. John so clearly testifies: “There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them” (Jn. 21:24). St. Paul, too, testifies that part of his teaching received from Christ (Gal. 1:12) was not included in his letters: “The things which you have heard from Me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2).
Consequently, while the Sacred Scriptures contain a large portion of God’s revelation, some portion of it was passed on orally and eventually recorded in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, those spiritual and intellectual giants of those early centuries who further explained and developed it. The second Council of Constantinople (553) rebuked those who do not follow the “traditions of the Fathers.” Those traditions“hold the faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, true God, entrusted to the holy apostles, and which, after them, the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church entrusted to their people.”While the writings of the Fathers were not inspired, they were handing down teaching that came from Christ through the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ. (Mt. 28:20).
Some practices of the Catholic Church coming down from the primitive Church are recorded only in sources other than the Scriptures. One example of this is the Didache, the full title of which is “The Lord’s Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles.” That document which dates from around the time of the Gospel of St. John tells us of the celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday (the Lord’s day) rather than on the Sabbath, and of the forgiveness of sin through confession.
The same is true of the liturgy, an important witness of sacred Tradition, for as the second Vatican Council testifies, “the Church, in her teaching, life, and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes” (ibid. 8). Changes in the Church’s liturgical customs result not only from adaptation to the times, but also from a development of doctrine that called for corresponding expression in the liturgy. Pope Pius XII referred to this in his encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ:
“As Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the Eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and so to reflect this light that it might reach the hearts and minds of Christ’s people more effectively” (Mediator Dei, I. 52).
C) CHRIST ESTABLISHED A LIVING TEACHING AUTHORITY
Our Blessed Lord not only commissioned the apostles to preach to all the world the saving message He had given them, but He empowered them to “bind and to loose” in His name, so that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”(Mt.16:19). Because of this, He assured them that “he who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Lk. 10:16).
Immediately after commissioning the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations, Our Savior continued: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world” (Mt. 28:20). By these words He assured the apostles that He would be with them (through the Holy Spirit whom He would send) so that they could hand down His teaching without error until the end of time. But since the apostles would not live that long, Christ’s promise is valid for His successors, those in charge of the Church in succeeding ages. Thus until the end of time the successors of the apostles will share the teaching authority conferred by Christ on the apostles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that He promised.
After the Ascension of Christ, the apostles did in fact claim for themselves a teaching authority, sending others as they themselves had been sent by Christ, with the power to teach in Christ’s name, to impose doctrine, as well as to govern the Church and to baptize.
Christ preached His message, He did not write it. In His preaching He appealed to the Scriptures, but was not satisfied merely to read them. He explained them, interpreted them. So too, in the centuries to come the Church would not merely refer to the Bible, but would explain and interpret it, applying it to the changing conditions of the times. Although the Bible is the inspired word of God, it was not meant to be our sole guide. Just as God provided mankind with the guiding light of the Scriptures, so He provided mankind - through the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit - with an official living authority to interpret those divinely inspired books. One of the main reasons for the division of Christendom into the hundreds of Christian religions we have today, is the claim that the interpretation of the Scriptures is left to the individual Christian. Just as the Constitution of the United States is not left to the interpretation of each individual American, but is interpreted authoritatively by the Supreme Court, so the whole deposit of revealed truth (the Bible and Tradition) is not left to the judgment of each individual Christian, but is interpreted for us by the living authority that Christ established. “He who hears you, hears Me” (Lk. 10:16). The second Vatican Council states this clearly:
“In order to keep the gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over their own teaching role to them. This Sacred Tradition,therefore and the Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament are like a mirror in which the pilgrim looks at God (ibid. u.7). . . . The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church (the magisterium) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (ibid. n.10).
D) THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
As we saw above, public revelation ended with the death of John the apostle. After him no new revelation has been added to the deposit of faith. However, that does not exclude the development of those truths contained in that revelation. As time passed on, the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, came to a greater understanding of God’s revealed word. The second Vatican Council speaks of this:
“This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . . As centuries succeeded one after another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (ibid. n.8).
Development of doctrine, therefore, does not mean a changing or abandoning of a doctrine originally taught, but rather the growth of the Church’s understanding of it. Revealed truths are not fixed or static concepts. Their richness is inexhaustible, so that succeeding generations have discovered new insights into God’s message to mankind.
One thing that has occasioned the development of doctrine has been the attacks on the revealed truths by those not of the Catholic faith. They might deny a truth outright, or might interpret it in a way not in keeping with its true meaning as handed down by the apostles. This requires and occasions on the part of the Church a fuller expression of those truths being challenged.
Then, too, there are doctrines of our Catholic faith that were contained in divine revelation only implicitly. And for that reason they became obligatory dogmas only after the passing of centuries. Examples of this are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Mother of God.
From the beginning the Church believed in the singular holiness of Mary, but it was not always clear whether or not she had contracted original sin. Some felt that the universality of Christ’s redemption, and the doctrine that “all sinned in Adam” (Rom.5:12), implied that Mary would need cleansing from original sin. However, with the passage of time and the reflections of saints and theologians (enlightened by the Holy Spirit), it was understood how Mary was redeemed by Christ without inheriting original sin, namely, in anticipation of Christ’s merits. Since the Mystical Body of Christ is a mystery that extends beyond space and time, Mary’s redemption was not curative, but preventative. Hence, only in the 19th and 20th centuries after Christ were these two doctrines, both of which are implicitly contained in divine revelation, declared dogmas of the Catholic faith. These truths had been divinely revealed from the beginning, but the explication and understanding of their divine revelation came only gradually.
THE UNITY OF SACRED TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE
Since sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture come from one and the same divine source, there is a close connection between them, both forming one sacred deposit of the word of God. One of them is not complete without the other. As the words themselves imply, SACRED SCRIPTURE is the written word of God divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit; and SACRED TRADITION is divinely guided “handing down” of that revealed truth entrusted to the apostles, and passed onwritten or unwritten. Hence the second Vatican Council declares:
“It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence” (ibid. 9).
And since, as we have seen, Christ established a living teaching authority to interpret in His name and hand down His revealed word, the same Vatican Council concludes:
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church (the magisterium), in accord with God’s most wise designs, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls” (ibid. 10)."
from comment 130 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/
from comment 158 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/
TRADITIONLiterally a “handing on,” referring to the passing down of God’s revealed word. As such it has two closely related but distinct meanings. Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God’s revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. Referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, the Second Vatican Council says: “It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received–whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 7). (Etym. Latin traditio, a giving over, delivery, surrender; a handing down: from tradere, to give up.)
So when you say:
So, when he came to Berea, and these people accepted Paul’s Word (and it was prophetic and Apostolic, and not a mere oral tradition)
The very words of Paul (revelation handed down to those to whom he was speaking) is Tradition, not “mere
[t]radition.” Paul was not quoting Old Testament Scripture, he was explaining something in it which was not clearly stated or found in the OT. Even Jesus had to interpret Scripture to those on the road to Emmaus. This too is Tradition. In fact, nearly every doctrine of the Apostles came in oral form from Jesus, so the vast majority of the New Testament is based on oral [T]radition. When the Apostles (and their successors) pass on to the faithful what they learned from Jesus, or from the Holy Spirit, this is [T]radition, (divine revelation not found in the written word but nevertheless communicated orally to the Church), not [t]radition, (disciplines, customs, etc.) or man-made [t]raditions condemned by Jesus, which is what you falsely assume we Catholics call [T]radition. According to Scripture, Jesus said and did many things that were never written down. It is beyond reasonable to think that the Apostles became mute and forgot every one of those events and never taught the things he spoke about during those times in which he performed miracles, etc. – again, all of which were never written down in Scripture. The Apostle himself tells us that [Sacred] Tradition is on par with Scripture:
[t]radition.” Paul was not quoting Old Testament Scripture, he was explaining something in it which was not clearly stated or found in the OT. Even Jesus had to interpret Scripture to those on the road to Emmaus. This too is Tradition. In fact, nearly every doctrine of the Apostles came in oral form from Jesus, so the vast majority of the New Testament is based on oral [T]radition. When the Apostles (and their successors) pass on to the faithful what they learned from Jesus, or from the Holy Spirit, this is [T]radition, (divine revelation not found in the written word but nevertheless communicated orally to the Church), not [t]radition, (disciplines, customs, etc.) or man-made [t]raditions condemned by Jesus, which is what you falsely assume we Catholics call [T]radition. According to Scripture, Jesus said and did many things that were never written down. It is beyond reasonable to think that the Apostles became mute and forgot every one of those events and never taught the things he spoke about during those times in which he performed miracles, etc. – again, all of which were never written down in Scripture. The Apostle himself tells us that [Sacred] Tradition is on par with Scripture:
“stand firm and hold to the [T]raditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15)
Christians must follow this [T]radition as well as the bible:
Luke 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
There are several examples of Tradition in the New Testament. To name a few:
1. The word Nazarene was mentioned ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23) – this is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.
2. “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3). Moses’ seat is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.
3. “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4) “The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.” David Palm
Thank you for your reply; I’m happy you took the time to consider my question seriously.
I’m going to read the content of your reply and consider the fullness of it, as a united expression of your views, at a later time.
For the moment, though, I am short on time, so I only want to address one particular concern: An anachronism you’ve (accidentally) attributed to me.
You said I was asking, “…why there is not much or any evidence of any protests from anyone concerning… 1. calling the Eucharist a sacrifice, 2. baptismal regeneration, and 3. mono-episcopate …were deviations from Scripture.”
Just to ensure we’re communicating clearly, let me point out that THAT isn’t quite what I asked.
I did NOT ask why there weren’t protests about early deviations (if that’s what they were) “from Scripture.”
I asked why there weren’t protests about early deviations (if that’s what they were) from theApostolic Teaching.
That’s not quite the same thing.
After all, the term “Scripture” in the period 33 AD (the Ascension) to 107 AD (the writings of Ignatius of Antioch) could be applied with certainty only to the pre-Messianic books (what we now call the Old Testament).
Yes, the 27 Apostolic Era (what we now call the New Testament) books had been written by the year 100, but nobody yet described them as “the New Testament.” (That term was used, if ever, for the Eucharist, which Christ had called “the new testament in My blood.”) Probably few churches had copies of all 27 of the books we now include in our New Testament, and we know that many churches had copies of other books like The Didache and The Shepherd and The Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians and often read from these works in the liturgy.
So if a Christian of this era were to tell you he was going to check to see whether Doctrinal Position XYZ was a deviation “from Scripture,” he wouldn’t mean by this that he was about to examine the text of 2nd Peter or James or Jude or Hebrews or Revelation or the Epistles of Johnor Paul’s Letter to Philemon.
He might have copies of few of those particular books, or none. If he had them, he might have some uncertainty about their doctrinal authority until he was sure that Text X was really from an Apostle (not pseudoepigraphical). And he might, in spite of his respect for the Apostle Paul, have looked at you funny if you claimed that Philemon had higher doctrinal authority than The Didache, when the latter was a widely-circulated liturgical-norms and doctrinal-exhortation document read under the title of “The Teaching of the Apostles,” whereas the former was obviously a personal letter to an individual Paul happened to know!
No, if a Christian of this era were to tell you he was going to check to see whether Doctrinal Position XYZ was a deviation “from Scripture,” he would be opening up his Septuagint. Those were the “Scriptures” which the Christians in the Greek town of Berea “searched” to see “if these things were so.”
And the Bereans were certainly not searching “the Scriptures” to find out whether Christian liturgical practices were true sacraments, or what Christian behavioral norms were. They were searching “the Scriptures” to see if Jesus really fit the criteria for being the Messiah (for example, whether it was plausible that the big Messianic Suffering-Servant prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-20 was fulfilled in Jesus).
They could not be searching “the Scriptures” to find out about Christian sacramentalism (Baptisms, the Eucharist, Laying-On-Of-Hands, etc.) because such topics couldn’t possibly be explained plainly in any document written prior to the coming of the Messiah Himself.
And as for Christian behavioral norms…! If they searched the Old Testament for clues about that, they would see it plainly spelled out that circumcision was required for membership in the People of God, full stop.
But that is not the right method for learning Christian behavioral norms, which is why the Apostles’ decision in Acts 15 flatly dissolved this Old Covenant practice. The Apostles’ decision about this was not decided by “searching the Scriptures” and if it had been it would have gone the opposite way! Rather, they exerted the authority Christ had given them: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
So I most definitely was NOT asking whether the early Christians would have protested about a teaching that deviated from “what was in Scripture.” If they took THAT approach to discerning orthodoxy from heterodoxy, the very first thing they’d have protested was the decision of the Protocouncil of Jerusalem in Acts 15 regarding circumcision.
Instead, I was asking why the early Christians had not loudly protested about deviations from the Apostolic Teaching, as they had received it. For they had received it mostly by word-of-mouth, together with whichever Apostolic-Era writings they might have acquired…a category which for them would have included the gospels, but might not have included all the Pauline, Petrine, and Johannine letters, and often included The Didache or The Shepherdor, especially in Corinth, the Letter of Clement.
Don’t mistake me: Apostolic Era books (those we do and don’t count canonical today) were surely cited and read from the pulpit — much as a pastor might quote Mere Christianity or My Utmost For His Highest today. But they might not have been included in a lectionary of planned readings yet. Their first planned lectionary would have been, in all likelihood, that which the Jews were already using in their Synagogues.
I therefore do not want our discussion to import an anachronistic notion of how Christians could discern between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. They had been taught Christianity; the minority of them who could read had surely NOT “read their way into it.”
Likewise in 2 Timothy 3, when Paul describes the Septuagint as being “god-breathed,” he is not telling Timothy that the Old Testament alone will allow Timothy to discern between Christian orthodoxy and heterodoxy. That level of information would require Timothy to have Apostolic Era knowledge, not merely Old Testament knowledge.
Fortunately the Apostolic Faith was already taught to Timothy by Paul, so Paul tells him to “continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it…,” and incidentally comments that Timothy’s knowledge of the Old Testament “from infancy” will also be very useful for instruction, rebuke, et cetera. Coupling this OT wisdom together with Timothy’s existing knowledge of the Apostolic Tradition he received from Paul will sufficiently make Timothy “equipped for every good work.”
But at the time Paul wrote that, of course, the 27 books of our New Testament were still mostly unwritten, and wouldn’t be officially canonized for a minimum of another 300 years.
So…
IF you’d told Timothy that “baptism saves you” or that Matthias was the successor to the episcopate of Judas, or that Jesus’ flesh and blood is truly present on the Christian altars so that the Christian who attends the liturgy is experiencing a sort of time-warp, standing at the foot of the cross, literally in the physical presence of the body and blood of Jesus atoning for humanity in His once-for-all sacrifice…
…IF you’d told Timothy all that, he would not have said, “Gee, let me go thumb through my copy of the Torah, or the Neviim, or the Ketuvim, to see if that’s right.”
No, Timothy would have compared what you were saying to the Apostolic Tradition which Paul had taught to him “whether by word-of-mouth or letter.” (Mostly word-of-mouth.)
And if what you said wasn’t compatible with what Timothy knew of Christianity, Timothy would not have said, “Hey, that’s not in the Scriptures!” (If he had, you could quite reasonably answer him, “Who’s talking about the Tanakh? I’m talking about what we Followers of the Way believe, which the Tanakh vaguely prefigures, but certainly doesn’t explain in detail.”)
No, if you said something was Christian orthodoxy and Timothy disagreed, he would have said something like, “I learned how to follow The Way from the Apostle Paul, who learned it from Jesus Christ, who is the Messiah. From whom are you getting these ideas, which are news to me?”
Of course, I think that “baptism now saves you” and the sacrificial Eucharist and Apostolic Succession ARE orthodox, and ARE among the things Paul taught Timothy. So, I think if you described these beliefs to Timothy, Timothy would have said, “Oh, sure, I know all that…you’ve been listening to my friend Paul, haven’t you?”
But whatever he used for discerning heterodoxy from orthodoxy, it wasn’t a book collection that was as-yet half-written and was three centuries from being standardized.
You wrote:
if you can show me a teaching of Jesus of apostolic provenance that is not recorded in Scripture, then we can talk.
There are many doctrines of “apostolic provenance” that are not recorded in Scripture and that the Church has always considered authoritative revelation. For instance, how about the claim that the Gospel of Mark is of apostolic origin and should be accepted as inspired Scripture? The Bible nowhere makes this claim, but tradition does.
We can give other examples, but this makes the point, I think.
You also make this claim:
The simple answer is that the only source of Apostolic tradition is the New Testament.
Is this a revealed doctrine? Has God ever said, “The only source of Apostolic tradition is the New Testament?” If you think the answer to this question is “yes,” (yes, God has revealed that NT is the unique source of apostolic doctrine) then I would appreciate seeing the evidence for this claim. If you think the answer is, “No,” (God has not revealed this) then I would have to conclude that the claim is of merely human opinion and not of divine revelation. What do you think.
You also ask, “Does Rome have an infallible list of all those teachings that never got written down?”
The answer is “Sort of.” I’m not aware of a list deriving from the extraordinary magisterium (a pope or council) that says, “Here is everything Christ revealed outside of Scripture.” However, the Church does tell us what the sources of tradition are. In particular, the liturgy, the Scriptures, the church’s juridical decisions, worship, devotion, the writings of the fathers, and so forth. The Church also claims to provide an authoritative interpretation of that tradition. And, for good measure, there is a list of those decisions. You’ll find it in Denzinger’s Enchiridion.
Finally, you write that the NT treats tradition as a static body of doctrine, and not something subject to development or evolving interpretation. I don’t really think that’s true, as Acts 15 makes clear. The deposit of faith is one thing – static, if you will – but its interpretation and development is subject to evolution, as we see in the pages of the New Testament itself and especially in the councils of the first 4 centuries.
comment 6 on same post:
You wrote:
I’m not even sure how to respond to such a statement. You think that the Gospel of Mark does not present itself with Apostolic authority? Even if its claims are bogus (which I do not believe they are) it most certainly provides an authoritative testimony that derives from Apostolic teaching.
Whether or not Mark provides an authoritative testimony that derives from apostolic teaching is precisely the question I mean to raise by my objection. Even more so, whether or not Mark is an inspired text intended by God to be collected into an authoritative canon. “Scripture,” as such, does not address this question. Even the Gospel of Mark itself makes no such claim about its own authority. At most, “Mark” presents itself as an account of “good news about Jesus the Messiah.” (Mark 1:1). It doesn’t claim to be of apostolic origin, let alone to be inspired, and, even less, to belong to a “canon.” All of these claims about Mark derive not from Mark itself, nor from the New Testament, but from the traditions of the early Church.
You are claiming there is extra-canonical apostolic testimony.
That is correct.
Robert is simply asking you to point to a doctrine that was taught by Jesus not recorded in Scripture.”
Yes. I gave one example: “St. Mark’s Gospel is inspired Scripture and to be included in the Church’s canon. Also, Mark wrote it, or at least stands behind it as the source of its apostolic material.” This is a revealed doctrine not found in Scripture.
But, for sake of argument, I’ll give another couple of examples that I know will be more contentious.
“The epiclesis belongs to the Church’s liturgy by apostolic authority.”
Or, how about this: “Christ does not intend for the exception clause in Matt. 19 to permit divorce between two baptized people in the case of adultery.”
Both of these statements are also part of the church’s tradition, but not found in Scripture. We know them from liturgy, juridical tradition, and the writings of the Fathers.
Here’s a tradition that I learned – believe it or not – from Doug Wilson: “Women should receive communion.” Nowhere mentioned in Scripture, no direct evidence from Scripture that women ever received communion. Better believe its in Tradition, however.
Or, how about this one: “Christians are prohibited from procuring abortion.” Find that in the Didache as well as the Church’s unbroken teaching and juridical tradition.
Should we get started on contraception?
Or, “the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church” (ordinatio sacerdotalis)
How about – “Civilly divorced Christians should not receive communion.” The Dominicans provide documentation for that here.
How about the tradition that Peter finished his course at Rome, and established his bishopric there?
We could go on and on. It’s also worth mentioning, however, that traditions aren’t simply discrete facts not recorded in Scripture, but also interpretations of Scripture. Take, for example, the patristic consensus that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, or that baptism really regenerates, or that the Eucharist is really the body of Christ, or that Christ established the priesthood, etc. etc.
. If we agree that God has revealed himself in Scripture, then the Protestant is simply asking why you believe that there is more Apostolic testimony than the Apostolic testimony we agree exists
Because the apostles say so. (2 Thess. 2:15)
Finally, nothing that Robert said necessitates a static body of doctrine that is not subject to development. Robert believes the “development” of Nicea was a good and clarifying thing as does every other Confessional Protestant body. The question is whether or not the Church has the authority to define traditions that are not recorded anywhere in the tradition.
I’m not sure that’s what Robert is saying. However, I’m not sure what you mean by “traditions not recorded in the tradition.” As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not claim authority for traditions that are not part of the tradition. Instead, the Catholic Church says we should hold to everything handed down to us by Christ and the apostles which Christ intended as part of the deposit of faith. Catholics also hold that doctrines must be authorized by divine authority to be considered part of the deposit of faith. So, for example, the claim “Scripture is our sole rule of faith” is nowhere authorized by divine authority. This claim is not taught in Scripture or in tradition or by the Magisterium of the Church. And so, the claim has no divine authority. It is a human tradition.
We don’t object to homoousious
I’m glad. But do you think the phrase homoousious has divine authority as part of the deposit of faith? Does the Church have the right to exclude from her fellowship all who deny homoousious? And if so, why? Is it merely because homoouisious agrees with your interpretation of Scripture? Or, does the Church have the right to authorize symbols (creeds) that possess divine authority by virtue of the authority of those who promulgate them? If it is the former, then no creed has divine authority as a creed but only as an interpretation of Scripture than may or may not be correct. If it is the latter, then we are moving in the direction of a divinely authorized Magisterium.
we do object to the Bodily Assumption of Mary. You claim both are Apostolic tradition. We affirm the former but not the latter because some developments come out of the Apostolic traditions while others are a perversion or distortion of it.
How do you differentiate a development from a distortion? And how, by the way, do you know that a doctrine was not passed down orally, by liturgy, canon, decree or devotion rather than in Scripture?
The way to test such a development is to allow the Apostolic testimony to judge it–this is Sola Scriptura.
No, this assumes that Sola Scriptura provides our only access to apostolic testimony. But, since this is what is at issue between us, it is also begging the question.
Thus, you do not accurately represent Robert or the Protestant tradition.
I was not aware that I was making an argument about Protestant tradition, but rather an argument about the teaching of Scripture.
However, I have addressed Protestant traditioin elsewhere.
However, I have addressed Protestant traditioin elsewhere.
It’s also problematic to use an Apostolic decision to determine whether or not the post-Apostolic church is able to make such determinations and deem them “Apostolic” in any meaningful sense. No one denies the Apostles had the authority to make Apostolic pronouncements, particularly in light of the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The question is whether post-Apostolic churches retain that same level of Apostolic authority; something that Acts 15 does not address.
Acts 15 establishes that the deposit of faith is not “self interpreting.” It was not perspicuous, even during the lives of the apostles, but required authoritative interpretation. Acts 15 also establishes that the Church-as-instituted-by-Christ had a mechanism for such authoritative interpretation. It was a mechanism consistent with Chris’s commission in Matt. 16, Matt 18, and John 20: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
Acts 15 does not address the question of succession, but neither does it give us any reason to believe that the Church subsequently took on a constitution nowhere mentioned in Scripture or tradition. That is to say, neither Acts 15 nor any other text of Scripture ever points us to “sola scriptura” as the Church’s rule of faith.
The question is whether post-Apostolic churches retain that same level of Apostolic authority.
Actually, that’s not the question I raised in this article. Instead, I asked, “Which Came First: the Liturgy or the Bible?”
My point is that the Liturgy – which clearly derives from Christ – is the ideal example of what the Church calls tradition. The texts of the New Testament come later and, interestingly, the Biblical Canon as a canon comes much, much later. The authority Paul ascribes to the liturgy is that he “received it from the Lord.” Even without a single word of Scripture, the Church can “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” in a way that possesses divine authority. If anyone wants to be contentious, remember “We have no other practice, nor do the Churches of God.” (1 Cor. 11:16)
comment 17
The implicit assumption is this – if we establish that a book (or a collection of books) is inspired by God and inerrant, then it follows that this book (or collection) must be the rule of things to be believed and practiced in the church. Barring any other contended for such authority (i.e., tradition), the case for Scripture looks even stronger.
But this assumption is quietly begging the question, because I do not concede the major premise. That is, just because a book (or collection) in inspired, it does not follow that it is the sole or even primary rule of faith. Inspiration does not automatically (I claim) translate into that kind of authority.
To illustrate – suppose that God inspired a cook book. (An absurd example, I admit). Would it follow that God intends the cook book to be the all-sufficient rule for airplane repair? (also absurd, sorry). No, and it wouldn’t even follow that God intends for this to be the final and authoritative cook book to end all culinary disputes. Unless God tells us otherwise, we could conclude only that God intends this to be an inspired cook book, a source of really great, divine recipes – inerrant recipes even.
Now the Catholic church freely confesses the inspiration and authority of Scripture. But even if she rejected all extra-scriptural tradition, it would not follow from that confession that God necessarily intends this collection of books to function in the way you suggest. There is nothing internal to the books in question that presents the collection in this light, and there is nothing in tradition, either.
The claim “God intends the 66 book canon to be the Church’s sole rule of faith,” is not self-evident, is not found in the tradition, and cannot be deduced from the content of the 66 books themselves. It is, at best, an inference from the fact of inspiration. But, I contend, it is a spurious inference – as the cook book example makes clear.
In order for the doctrine of sola scriptura to have divine authority, one must have an argument, based on evidence, that God intends this collection of books to function in this way.
By contrast, when I look at the data on how Christ set up the Church, and see what provision he made for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith, I see that he did make specific provision, authorizing individuals to teach in his name and with divine authority. He also commanded ritual actions performed “in his memory,” and commanded that his teaching be handed on to posterity. In other words, Christ specifically mentioned a body of tradition and a teaching authority. He never mentioned a New testament Canon.
So, identifying the canon as the rule of faith is to exceed the teaching of Christ.
from 20:
Or to my query more simply, I do not see how the following four propositions can hang together logically.
Prop 1: “only God’s Word is to be considered inerrant and irrevocably binding on Christians”
Prop 2: “The canonical text is God’s Word”
Prop 3: We only know which writings make up the canonical text by way of extra-canonical Church tradition.
Prop 4: The extra-canonical Church tradition by which the canonical text was identified was, itself, either inerrant and irrevocably binding on Christians, or it was not inerrant and irrevocably binding on Christians.
The first two propositions are taken from your remarks above, and I believe they are taken with due attention to context. The fourth proposition seems indisputable as presenting two mutually exclusive alternatives.
If the extra-canonical tradition by which the canon was identified was, itself, inerrant and irrevocable; then God’s Word (the canonical text) is not the only inerrant and irrevocable rule of faith binding on Christians. The inerrant and irrevocable extra-canonical tradition by which the canonical text was identified, would also enter into the rule of faith.
If, on the other hand, the extra-canonical tradition by which the canonical text was identified was notinerrant and irrevocable, then it seems self-defeating to insist that the content of the canonical text is inerrant and irrevocable for Christians while simultaneously holding that the extra-canonical means by which the identity of that content is made known is not inerrant and irrevocable. It would amount to an epistemological effect devoid of an adequate epistemological cause.
Accordingly, as far as I can tell, the only way out of this dilemma would be to deny proposition 3, which is why I am interested in knowing if you do deny it, and if so, what alternative(s) you would propose for explaining how men gain epistemological access to the identification of the canonical text.
from comment 22
”Making the inspiration of Scripture dependent upon the means by which the Church recognizes Scripture misunderstands that nature of Scripture to begin with.”
Agreed. I never wrote that the inspiration of Scripture was dependent upon the means by which the Church recognizes Scripture. The inspiration of Scripture depends solely on the free action of God by which He inspired the authors who were instrumental in composing the text. If God inspires a writing, it is inspired, immediately and whether anyone else besides God knows about it or not. However,our recognition or knowledge of the fact that some particular collection of writings is inspired does depend upon the means by which the Church recognizes Scripture. Again, you seem to be conflating ontology and epistemology.
...........................................................
The Church, in her Tradition, must be infallible – at least in the acts whereby she identifies the contents of the canon and proclaims its inspired and authoritative status – if we are to know what constitutes Scripture. Without knowledge concerning what constitutes Scripture, we do not know which writings toward which to direct our faith. Therefore, the epistemological requirement of the Church’s “recognition”, “testimony” and “proclamation” concerning the content of the canon and its inspired nature remains inescapable. Nothing you have written so far touches the arguments which I made in my prior posts to support this conclusion.
also here comment 63 and others http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/...........................................................
The Church, in her Tradition, must be infallible – at least in the acts whereby she identifies the contents of the canon and proclaims its inspired and authoritative status – if we are to know what constitutes Scripture. Without knowledge concerning what constitutes Scripture, we do not know which writings toward which to direct our faith. Therefore, the epistemological requirement of the Church’s “recognition”, “testimony” and “proclamation” concerning the content of the canon and its inspired nature remains inescapable. Nothing you have written so far touches the arguments which I made in my prior posts to support this conclusion.
The major thesis of the current article (Which came first . . . ?) is that Christ instituted the liturgy (“Do this in memory of me”) as, among other things, a distinctly non-scriptural means of conveying the faith. (As often as you eat, drink, you proclaim . . . ). We know from St. Paul that this non-scriptural rite was received by way of tradition (The tradition I received from the Lord I pass on to you.”) This is a paradigmatic case of what the Church means by tradition. Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century point specifically to the content and interpretation of that rite as a specific instance of tradition, including elements (such as the epiclesis) that are distinctly missing from the scriptural narrative.
If you are asking whether God’s direct speech is to be the rule of faith for the Church, the answer would have to be no. God’s direct speech and God’s acts in history constitute the material in the deposit of faith. But the rule for transmitting, interpreting, and safeguarding that deposit has been entrusted to authorized individuals. “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you… the overseer refutes false doctrine, etc.”
None of your examples establish the thing that you’re trying to prove
I think we must have a misunderstanding here. I am not arguing that Christ delivered every detail of the Tridentine Liturgy or Chrysostom’s liturgy, or some such development. But isn’t it obvious that Christ’s institution of the Eucharist predates its record in the Synoptics? And isn’t it obvious that Paul did not rely on his own letter to the Corinthians to convey the Church’s Eucharistic tradition to Corinth? He appealed to the tradition he received from the Lord.
Of course, we also have a written account of the institution, but the rite was in place and celebratedbefore any written account was offered. Is this really that controversial?
I’m still not sure what Apostolic practices you believe have been retained in the liturgy that are not grounded in Scripture.
Here’s one mentioned by Cyprian, but he’s not the first to do so:
Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united” (“On the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord,” No 13).
From St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit:
For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.
I would particularly direct your attention to the mention of the invocation at the display of the eucharistic elements, an extremely important eucharistic tradition (included in all ancient liturgies) that reinforces and confirms the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist.
from comment 108 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition
An interesting citation from Ratzinger he wrote as peritus while Dei Verbum was being crafted:
“But the Fathers did not see this as a set of affirmations being passed on alongside Scripture. In fact, they simply denied the existence of such statements. For them tradition was the insertion of Scripture into the living organism of the Church and the Church’s right of possession of Scripture, as Tertullian formulated in classic fashion in The Praescription 0f Heretics. For them, tradition is simply scriptura in ecclesia
[Scripture in the Church]. Scripture lives in the midst of its vital appropriation by the Spirit-filled Church and only so is it truly itself. ”
and
“In spite of such texts, neither Bonaventure nor Thomas are scripturalists, since they both know well that revelation is always more than its material principle, the Scripture, namely, that it is life living on in the Church in a way that makes Scripture a living reality and illumines its hidden depths. So we are back at the beginning. If one identifies revelation with its material principles, then tradition has to be set up as a proper material principle in order to keep revelation from being totally in Scripture. But if revelation is prior and greater, then there is no trouble in having only one material principle, which even so is still not the whole, but only the material principle of the superior reality revelation, which lives in the Church. This means, to be
sure, that the three realities, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium are not static entities placed beside each other, but have to be seen as one living organism of the word of God, which from Christ lives on
in the Church.”
“But the Fathers did not see this as a set of affirmations being passed on alongside Scripture. In fact, they simply denied the existence of such statements. For them tradition was the insertion of Scripture into the living organism of the Church and the Church’s right of possession of Scripture, as Tertullian formulated in classic fashion in The Praescription 0f Heretics. For them, tradition is simply scriptura in ecclesia
[Scripture in the Church]. Scripture lives in the midst of its vital appropriation by the Spirit-filled Church and only so is it truly itself. ”
and
“In spite of such texts, neither Bonaventure nor Thomas are scripturalists, since they both know well that revelation is always more than its material principle, the Scripture, namely, that it is life living on in the Church in a way that makes Scripture a living reality and illumines its hidden depths. So we are back at the beginning. If one identifies revelation with its material principles, then tradition has to be set up as a proper material principle in order to keep revelation from being totally in Scripture. But if revelation is prior and greater, then there is no trouble in having only one material principle, which even so is still not the whole, but only the material principle of the superior reality revelation, which lives in the Church. This means, to be
sure, that the three realities, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium are not static entities placed beside each other, but have to be seen as one living organism of the word of God, which from Christ lives on
in the Church.”
from comment 172 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/
Newman wrote:
“What then is meant by the Depositum? is it a list of articles that can be numbered? no, it is a large philosophy; all parts of which are connected together, and in a certain sense correlative together, so that he who really knows one part, may be said to know all. . . . Thus the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once. They are elicited according to the occasion. A man of genius cannot go about with his genius in his hand: in an Apostle’s mind great part of his knowledge is from the nature of the case latent or implicit… I wish to hold that there is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered, as the Church has answered, the one answering by inspiration, the other from its gift of infallibility; and that the Church never will be able to answer, or has been able to answer, what the Apostles could not answer…”
“What then is meant by the Depositum? is it a list of articles that can be numbered? no, it is a large philosophy; all parts of which are connected together, and in a certain sense correlative together, so that he who really knows one part, may be said to know all. . . . Thus the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once. They are elicited according to the occasion. A man of genius cannot go about with his genius in his hand: in an Apostle’s mind great part of his knowledge is from the nature of the case latent or implicit… I wish to hold that there is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered, as the Church has answered, the one answering by inspiration, the other from its gift of infallibility; and that the Church never will be able to answer, or has been able to answer, what the Apostles could not answer…”
and also from comment 172
Tradition has to be interpreted authoritatively just as Scripture does (heretics in past have appealed not only to Scripture but their “tradition” as well). As to the Assumption, Ratzinger:
“What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but also of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Würzburg (who also had come from Breslau), had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition”. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [That's for you Robert]. This was the position that our teachers represented. But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was already handed down in the original Word. But such a perspective was still quite unattainable by German theological thought.”
Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, “Called to Communion--
Let me give you a little bit from his book that pertains to the topic of this article:
“ Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roma bias, has remarked in this regard[that assembling of the writings into a single scripture is the work of tradition] that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the “books of the New Testament’ won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches( Antioch and Alexandria; Jerusalem as apostolic see had since moved with Peter) subscribed ‘for the sake of its intrinsic value on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church’. We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas—the preeminent original authority—of the Roman see as the constitutive element.
Two points emerge clearly from what has just been said. First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form—apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other.”
“ Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roma bias, has remarked in this regard[that assembling of the writings into a single scripture is the work of tradition] that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the “books of the New Testament’ won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches( Antioch and Alexandria; Jerusalem as apostolic see had since moved with Peter) subscribed ‘for the sake of its intrinsic value on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church’. We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas—the preeminent original authority—of the Roman see as the constitutive element.
Two points emerge clearly from what has just been said. First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form—apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other.”
also here at comment 221 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/sola-scriptura-vs-the-magisterium-what-did-jesus-teach/
It would be an egregious strawman to treat the Apostolic Tradition as including every statement made by every Church Father. The Church has never believed or taught such a thing. Rather, the Apostolic Tradition is constituted by the moral consensus of the Fathers.
Regarding the statement by St. Irenaeus, I’ve addressed that in comment #37 under my post on St. Irenaeus. I’ve also briefly addressed the moral consensus issue in comment #271 of the “Why Protestantism has no visible church” thread.
from comment 181 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/#comment-162120
The problem can be seen as soon as one reflects carefully on the following question: who counts as “the church”? Any heretic can define ‘the church’ according to his own beliefs and interpretations, and in this way affirm everything in the excerpted paragraph above as applying to his own [heretical] community, or to the set of communities he counts as sufficiently with the bounds of ‘orthodoxy’ as defined according to his false position. So all this locating of the Spirit in “the church” is worthless if“the church” is defined in an ad hoc way, because the position then reduces to ‘the Spirit speaks through the community of persons picked out by their sufficient agreement with my interpretation of Scripture.’ And that is even more nefarious than simply stating “the Spirit speaks ultimately through me” because it hides from itself its egoism, masking it under the semantics of community, as Neal Judisch and I have explained elsewhere.
from comment 181 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/#comment-162120
The problem can be seen as soon as one reflects carefully on the following question: who counts as “the church”? Any heretic can define ‘the church’ according to his own beliefs and interpretations, and in this way affirm everything in the excerpted paragraph above as applying to his own [heretical] community, or to the set of communities he counts as sufficiently with the bounds of ‘orthodoxy’ as defined according to his false position. So all this locating of the Spirit in “the church” is worthless if“the church” is defined in an ad hoc way, because the position then reduces to ‘the Spirit speaks through the community of persons picked out by their sufficient agreement with my interpretation of Scripture.’ And that is even more nefarious than simply stating “the Spirit speaks ultimately through me” because it hides from itself its egoism, masking it under the semantics of community, as Neal Judisch and I have explained elsewhere.
Only the existence of a divinely authorized magisterium allows both ‘heresy’ and ‘schism from the Church’ to be defined in a non ad hoc way. But Allen and Swain do not acknowledge a divinely authorized magisterial authority, and for this reason their position regarding what is “the church” remains ad hoc. (I’ve pointed out this problem before in my reply to Mark Galli and in the last paragraph of comment #89 in the Brad Gregory thread.)
Moreover, fatal to the Protestant attempt to embrace tradition as in any sense authoritative is theecclesial deism inherent in Protestantism, according to which necessarily, as shown by the very need for Protestantism in the sixteenth century to the present day, tradition cannot be trusted, and must therefore be subject to one’s own interpretation of Scripture to test its authenticity. But when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me. Hence, as I’ve shown in the post at the top of this page, when what gets to count as tradition is only that which conforms to one’s own interpretation of Scripture, one is giving only lip-service to the authority of tradition, while hiding from oneself one’s denial of the authority of tradition. In this way Protestant’s justification for its own existence presupposes that tradition is unreliable, and not authoritative.
Further evidence for this can be found in the confessionalists vs. biblicists debate within the Reformed community, a debate I’ve discussed here. The arguments raised by the Reformed biblicists against the confessionalists apply no less to the ‘catholic’ tradition, given a Protestant ecclesiology. Without a magisterium, there is no principled difference between choosing which Protestant confessions to which to ‘submit’ on the basis of one’s interpretation of Scripture, and choosing which catholic traditions count as ‘catholic tradition’ on the basis of one’s interpretation of Scripture. And if ‘catholic’ tradition is supposed to be more authoritative than the Reformed confessions because the former is not “Reformed,” then this only shows that Reformed theology is not ‘catholic.’
A second reason lies behind the inherent incompatibility of Protestantism and catholic tradition. The formation of a schism from the Church, in the name of standing with the tradition in the Church Fathers, is not itself part of the tradition of the Fathers, but is itself contrary to the tradition. For the Fathers it was better to die than to form or enter a schism from the Church (i.e. the living community). The tradition does not provide a justification for or affirmation of choosing to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church rather than submit to her authentic Magisterium; the tradition is exactly the opposite. So a belief in the acceptability of forming or entering a schism from the Church for the sake of presumed faithfulness to the tradition is itself a departure from the tradition, as is the embrace of excommunication from the Catholic Church, and of remaining in such a state of excommunication without appeal for reconciliation.
Protestants attempt to justify this position in two ways. They either claim that Protestantism is the continuation of the Church, and that the [Roman] Catholic Church departed from her through various errors, or they claim that Protestantism formed a branch within the “church catholic,” and was only cut off from a branch (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church), and is thus not in schism from the “church catholic.” The problem with the latter claim is that Protestantism’s ‘branch ecclesiology’ is itself a departure from the tradition. While “schism from” the Church is actually possible according to the tradition, yet because Protestantism’s invisible church ecclesiology makes “schism from” the Church conceptually impossible (see here), it thus does not allow for a non ad hoc distinction between a “branch within” the Church and a “schism from” the Church.
Likewise, the problem with the former claim is that the ecclesial deism inherent in the claim that the Church Catholic had departed from the faith is itself contrary to the tradition, because according to the tradition, the Church is indefectible. Any heretical group that separates from the Catholic Church can claim to be the continuation of the Church, and can claim that the Catholic Church separated from her. But any such claim can be justified only by way of ad hoc definitions of ‘heresy’ and ‘schism,’ definitions that depart from the respective definitions handed down within the tradition. So both attempted Protestant justifications for separating from the Catholic Church and remaining separated from the Catholic Church run afoul of tradition. And thus again, for these reasons, Protestantism and catholic tradition are inherently incompatible.
also from comment 46 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2015/12/fulton-sheens-biblical-account-of-the-catholic-church-as-christs-mystical-body/
You wrote,
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/02/on-the-usefulness-of-tradition-a-response-to-recent-objections/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/
This article from Catholic Answers, particularly the last couple paragraphs, also speak to your question:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
in Christ, casey
also from comment 46 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2015/12/fulton-sheens-biblical-account-of-the-catholic-church-as-christs-mystical-body/
You wrote,
Okay, then list the deposit of faith. If it is fixed, then you should be able to identify it. Protestantism can. The deposit of faith is Scripture. I’ve yet to have any Roman Catholic tell me what the deposit of faith is. I’ve yet to have any Roman Catholic tell me what constitutes tradition in its entirety.I just told you what the deposit of faith is. The problem, it would seem, is that the Catholic Church’s understanding of Tradition is more nuanced than you would like, because you are looking for a concept of Tradition that fits nicely into a ready-made Protestant sola scriptura-type model, where all authority neatly fits between two covers. In truth, Scripture itself does not work this way (given a combination of Tradition and ecumenical Church authority cooperated to define its contents and an external authority is still required to interpret its meaning), so it is reasonable to expect neither will Tradition. CTC has however explained the nature and scope of Tradition elsewhere, so I’m happy to direct you to those resources:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/02/on-the-usefulness-of-tradition-a-response-to-recent-objections/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/
This article from Catholic Answers, particularly the last couple paragraphs, also speak to your question:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
in Christ, casey
No comments:
Post a Comment