Tradition and Scripture

On my last post, on Our Lord and the Principle of Tradition, commenter Joshua responded from the perspective of Calvinist Christianity. I will now take some time to respond. 

Joshua said:

“In their debates, the church fathers regularly reference the teachings of the apostles, which they call traditions, and which they in many places state are ‘Contained’ in the writings of the apostles. In fact, in many places, particularly in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Mattemus, and Augustine, the word tradition is used as a pseudonym for the Epistles of Paul, Peter, etc. The church fathers seemed to have 4 parts of Scripture – the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Tradition. The reflection is clear.”

I agree with your sentiments regarding taking the Fathers out of context. Far too often that is what is done in order to score apologetics points. That being said, it is genuinely difficult to read them in context since so many of us lack the context necessarily to read them accurately.

But the Catholic view on Tradition does not have to contradict the patristic view of Scripture. Indeed, the Fathers as well as the great theologians and doctors of the Church assume that Scripture is materially sufficient as a source of revelation. I affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture. What we deny is that strict deductive reasoning from the Scriptures when read on a historical-critical basis is sufficient for understanding the fullness of the revelation of God. Sola scriptura is false, i.e., reading the Scriptures apart from the Tradition of the Church and in disobedience to the living teaching authority of the Church will not result in knowing the truth of revelation. We must read the Scriptures as the Church reads the Scriptures to come to truth.

“Anyhow, that is exactly how I believe tradition works. Tradition, whatever it is within a particular church, cannot and must not claim as doctrine anything which cannot be soundly established in Scripture.”

This seems to be a useless restriction on Tradition.  It’s not that I disagree.  It’s that your conception wrongly uses Scripture as a check against Tradition.  It is a typical Protestant opposition: we must choose one to trump the other, and so when we must choose either Tradition or Scripture, we will choose to judge Tradition against Scripture.  The Catholic view is different.  The Tradition of the Church is the correct understanding of the Scriptures which the Church carries within its bosom, and from which one draws out the life-giving fullness of the truth in revelation.  The Scriptures cannot function as a check against Tradition precisely because Tradition is how we read and understand Scripture.

And again, what do you mean by soundly established in Scripture? For if you mean a proof-text according to the literal sense of the Scriptures only, then surely you are not in accord with the Patristic view of tradition. Often the Fathers do not quote the Scriptures in a way which a historical-critical reading would prove the doctrines they believe. Rather, they read the Scriptures from the Tradition of the Church and thus see the doctrine of the Church in the Scriptures. To this end they will sometimes quote Scripture to illustrate a doctrine which does so in an allegorical, typical or other way which is not a proof-text, just as Peter’s usage of the Psalms in Acts 1 is not a proof-text for the manner of succession for the apostles. So you perhaps agree with the Fathers, in a sense, regarding the necessity of basing doctrine on Scripture, but if you limit it to proof-texts on the literal level then you disagree with them.

You seem to understand the Fathers rather well when you say:

“The whole basis of every attack by the church fathers on heresy was ‘Scripture doesn’t say it, and we haven’t interpreted the Scriptures to say it.’”

Especially “and we haven’t interpreted the Scriptures to say it.” The heretics are wrong precisely because they wrest the Scriptures from their proper interpretation and proper home in the Church.

But then you slip back into the typical false Protestant dichotomy when you say:

“On the contrary, traditions must always be based, checked against, and measured by the clear teaching of Scripture.”

There is no contradiction or opposition between Tradition and the Scripture. And indeed, in many ways Tradition is precisely how they have “interpreted the Scriptures to say” the doctrines which the Church professes. But this presupposes the fullness of the doctrine which the Church teaches for one must approach the Scriptures– which are materially sufficient– only within the Church’s Tradition. But outside of the Church’s Tradition Scripture cannot function in that manner and so I’m dubious about you saying that the tradition is being ‘based, checked against, etc.’ Rather Scripture itself is read in the light of the Church’s belief, and thereby vindicates true doctrine. The heretics have Scripture, but reading it outside of tradition they pervert it to their private and erring interpretations.

“This is Sola Scriptura, NOT Solo Scriptura. Solo Scriptura means me & my bible, all by myself in a dark corner. Sola Scriptura means Scripture First, Scripture Primary. It never ever meant Scripture Alone.”

Indeed, this is a more sophisticated picture than evangelicals would ever dare to paint. Nevertheless, unless you confess that the Scriptures are not formally sufficient unto themselves but must be read within the tradition of the Church then prima scriptura still departs from the teaching of the Fathers.

“Nor are they the property of the Church, but rather the Church is owned by the Scriptures. After all, Christ is the Word, and the Church is His.”

As the Church confesses in Dei Verbum, she is the servant of God’s revelation, not its ruler.

“A deposit of faith makes it sound like Scripture is the Church’s property, something the Church wrote and collected together.”

I don’t think this is what is meant, but I do agree with you that the Church does not have authority over revelation, but rather authority within revelation, so to speak.

Apologies for the length by the way. Just one more thought – it appears to me that your defense of the Roman traditions is identical to what the Pharisees used to defend their traditions. You write ‘This is another vindication of Catholic doctrine, for these practices all are supportive of divine charity and are ordered towards it.’ My question is, isn’t that exactly the same structure and shape of the arguments the Pharisees used to defend their hedges around the Sabbath law? They would have said ‘These practices are supportive of the divine commandment against breaking the Sabbath and are ordered towards it.’ Where is the substantive difference in these two positions? The Reformers accused the Roman church of being Pharisees with the Gospel – adding traditions that built hedges and barriers, all in the name of honoring the Gospel.

The Pharisaical position violates the spirit of the law, whereas the Catholic one does not.  That is the difference.

I argue that these practices support the spirit of the law, whereas the Pharisees argued that their practices supported the letter of the law.  Jesus’ condemnation is that the Pharisees are making a performative contradiction by affirming the letter of the law in such a way that violates the spirit of the law.  But Catholics think that indulgences, etc. support the spirit of the law, so they do not even fall under the type of condemnation which Jesus was giving in that passage.  This is why Yves Congar asks,

“Is it honest from the exegete’s point of view, to jockey with the words of our Lord by taking them out of their context, by taking them out of any context, in order to transfer them to that of Protestant polemic, to secure victory in a conflict with which they are not concerned?”

It’s another type of condemnation to say that Catholics, while trying to uphold the spirit of the law, actually violate it.  In context, Christ’s words just aren’t directly applicable.

The whole point of an indulgence is to excite the Christian to greater charity in this life so that he can expiate by love in this life what would need to be expiated by purifying punishment in the next. I encourage you to read the most recent Manual of Indulgences (which is the English translation of the 4th edition of the Enchridion Indulgentiarum) which makes this quite clear.  Likewise, prayer for the dead enjoins us to regard our deceased brethren in the Lord with love and care and drives us to greater love for them by performing works of charity on their behalf. I literally am unable to see how these are not ordered towards love. You may respond, but these are false and illusory doctrines and practices. So be it. But you cannot say that they are inconsistent from our position as not bringing us towards greater love of God and man.

The only argument you can make is that these doctrines are heretical, and heresy is destructive of divine charity, therefore, these doctrines are destructive of divine charity.  But note that in order to do this you must start by asserting that these doctrines are false.  And that is exactly what is in question.  It would merely beg the question to throw this typical Protestant polemic at us.

Lastly, you said:

“That is precisely the point where the Reformers, and too the Church Fathers, attack such doctrines as indulgences, pray for the dead, the real, though unbloody, sacrifice of the Mass, etc. The historical account does not credit the position that these teachings are divine, reflecting both a development, and in some cases a clear origination (papal infallibility for example) out of circumstances completely ungodly. For one thing, the church fathers clearly do not support them – their polemic disagrees entirely with the typical traditions defended under sacred tradition,”

I wanted to save this for last lest particulars overwhelm the discussion.

The Church Fathers are definitely in support of the Catholic doctrines.  Prayer for the dead, the sacrifice of the Mass, especially.  It is the Protestant position, as in the person of Martin Luther, who in his Babylonian Captivity had to foreswear the unanimous witness of the Fathers on the sacrifice of the Mass rather than accept the Mass as ‘a work and a sacrifice.’  This is unanimously acknowledged by the Fathers, especially as foreshadowed by the prophet Malachi. For instance, see the Didache and St. Justin Martyr. The Catholic Church has clarified in what sense the sacrifice of the Mass is taught in the Church, and it indeed in no way contradicts biblical teaching on the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Any Protestant mindful of tradition ought to know that the Catholic position, properly understood, ought not to be in contention between Protestants and Catholics. Rather, Protestants need to affirm in a real way the sacrifice of the Mass if they want to be in continuity with the tradition of the Church and the Fathers for the Fathers do call the Mass a sacrifice.

Prayer for the dead. This already exists in its totality in the second Book of Maccabees which enjoins upon us prayer for the dead so that sins may be atoned. Prayer for the dead, likewise, was a practice in the early Church. It is in common throughout all of the liturgies of East and West. As for a specific citation, I am sure that you are aware of St. Monica’s request to be remembered at the altar to her son St. Augustine.

Doctrine on indulgences grows out of the penitential practice of the Church coupled with the power of binding and loosing, and forgiveness of sins, which were given to the Church.

As to doctrinal development– of course we admit it. It’s simply how things are. However, we reject your characterization of origination. We confess that the fullness of revelation was given to the apostles and transmitted to the Church. Nevertheless, in her lived life the Church, under the guidance of the same Spirit, is guided into understanding the mystery of God which has been revealed in a fuller and deeper way. Development does not mean that the doctrine is not divine in origin.

As for your comment, “out of circumstances completely ungodly,” this sounds more like overwarmed Protestant polemic. Please clarify what you mean. Note, of course, that arguing “completely” ungodly is going to make your argument much harder. I doubt very much it was that one-sided, even if your position is true.

My apologies for taking so long Joshua.  God bless.