Material Sufficiency, Tradition and the Fathers with Yves Congar OP

Yves Congar OP in Tradition and traditions has a short ‘excursus’ on the Patristic thought on the material sufficiency of Scripture. This should give us much to think on. After presenting a great deal of evidence, he concludes:

That is the end of this little dossier on the sufficiency of Scripture. It makes no attempt to incorporate all the texts cited by the Protestant polemicists, many of which are rather less ad rem than those we have chosen.

There is a “fact of tradition” which it is essential to take account of. Personally, I find no difficulty, and not a little joy, in discovering there the positive affirmation that Scripture contains, at least in the form of suggestion or principle, the entire treasury of truths which it is necessary to believe in order to be saved (provided there is an adequate presentation of the Gospel message).

To say that, in the sense in which the Fathers and the medieval theologians held it, does not in any way amount to a profession of the principle of Scriptura sola demanded by the Reformers. They were reacting against a sovereignty of the Church’s power, more precisely of the papal power, over the word of God contained in Scripture, a sovereignty which they considered exorbitant, as indeed it would have been if in fact it had corresponded to the image they had formulated of it. It was with the intention of restoring the sovereignty of God alone that they presented that of Scripture as exclusive. In order to do this effectively, they affirmed the sufficiency of this Scripture, not uniquely in a material sense, that is to say as the object quod creditur, but in a formal sense, that is to say as the means whereby we know, the constitutive light by which we understand, the principle of the rule of faith, in short, using scholastic terminology, as the object quo. Not only was the whole of faith contained in Scripture, but the Christian, benefiting from the interior witness of the Holy Spirit, could find it there.

Now, the Fathers and the medieval theologians, whom we have citeD:

(1) Admit the material sufficiency of Scripture. They stress that the explanations of the doctors and the council definitions only clarify what is said, more or less clearly or obscurely, in Scripture. They are alos of the opinion that God has communicated to us certain important aspects of the covenant relation, by a way other than that of Scripture. There exist unwritten traditions. This without prejudice to the fact that these mainly, though not exclusively, concern worship and Christian moral behaviour.

(2) Ever since they began discussing these matters, consistently affirmed that Scripture by itself cannot be adequately present its true meaning; it is only understood correctly int he Church and in its tradition. If there is one position which the Fathers consistently maintained, it is the position that links inseparably Scripture, the Church and Tradition. Far from considering these three realities to be in opposition, they saw them as united and inseparable.

(3) Often expressed their convictions in reference to a special occasion, in a particular context. Very few of the texts to which we have referred can be considered as declarations of principle or as theses of theological criteriology. This can easily be seen merely by referring to their original context. Bellarmine, and then, nearer to our own day, Franzelin, re-established the significance and bearing of many of these texts, merely by recalling their context and scope: Bellarmine, Controv. de Verbo Dei, lib. IV, c. II (Opera, Paris, 1870, Vol. 1, pp.223-8; Franzelin, De div. Trad. et Script., th. XIX (2nd ed., Rome, 1875, pp. 236ff). Although Bellarmine came very close to accepting the sufficiency of Scripture for what is necessary for all men (see op. cit., c.3, p. 197: “Nos asserimus in Scripturis non contineri expresse totam doctrinam necessariam”), I am inclined to think that both he and Franzelin treated in too negative a fashion both the idea itself of the sufficiency of Scripture and the ancient texts which present it, because of an atmosphere too charged with polemic.

Newman, on the contrary, for the benefit of his old friend Pusey, succeeded in formulating a more favourable Catholic position, such as could have been held by those Fathers who teaching he had so well assimilated. We cannot do better than finish by quoting here this irenic and Catholic extract from his writings:

You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; but, after all, neither do you, nor do I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those Notes also make frequent reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so certainly contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. pp. 283, 341;* and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition; and this is all that Catholics say. How, then, do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I believe the difference is merely one of words…. Catholic and Anglicans (I do not say Protestants), attach different meaning to the word “proof”, in the controversy as to whether the whole faith is, or is not, contained in Scripture. We mean that not every article of faith is so contained there, that it may thence be logically proved, independently of the teaching and authority of the Tradition; but Anglicans mean that every article of faith is so contained there, that it may thence be proved, provided there be added the illustrations and compensations supplied by the Tradition. And it is in this latter sense that the Fathers also speak in the passages which you quote from them. I am sure at least that St Athanasius frequently adduces passages in proof of points in controversy, which no one would see to be proofs, unless Apostolical Tradition were taken into account, first as suggesting, then as authoritatively ruling, their meaning. Thus you do not say, that the whole revelation is in Scripture in such sense that pure unaided logic can draw it from the sacred text; nor do we say, that it is not in Scripture, in an improper sense, in the sense that the Tradition of the Church is able to recognize and determine it there. You do not profess to dispense with Tradition; nor do we forbid the idea of probable, secondary, symbolical, connotative, senses of Scripture, over and above those which properly belong to the wording and context. I hope you will agree with me in this. (Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, considred in a Letter addressed to the Rev. E.B. Pusey, D.D., on the occasion of his Eirenicon of 1864, Vol. II, 2,2.)

[*Oxford edition.]

Tradition and traditions, Yves Congar OP.  Pages 116-118.

See the other two parts of this series:

1. Our Lord and the Principle of Tradition.
2. Tradition and Scripture.
3. Material Sufficiency, Tradition and the Fathers with Yves Congar OP.