I've recently heard arguments from a friend of mine who says that Scripture is itself subject the the authority of Tradition. This view is most identifiable from within the Roman Catholic camp of Christianity, and it presents itself quite convincingly, at face value. The argument goes something like this: Scripture is infallible inasmuch as those who canonized were themselves infallible; therefore, these men, operating from within the Holy Tradition, bear the weight and authority of Tradition onto the canonized Scripture. In conclusion, we have the Scripture, arranged and canonized by men, which is subject to the authority of the men operating from within the Holy Tradition.
As I have said, this can sound very convincing at first, but there are some big problems with this reasoning. The biggest error that I can see is the lack of objectivity given to God's Word, the Scriptures. The way I see it, if we can give math the benefit of objectivity, we should do likewise for God's Word. Going further in this example of mathematics, we find men in the past who have developed theorems and proofs that men before them had not developed, hence they “discovered” those theorems and proofs. But it would be silly to say that they invented the very principles of math that they sought to theorize and make useful in theorem form. Most certainly math exists outside of our knowledge of it. Two and two make four, quite regardless of whether I acknowledge that or not. This objective view of math can be very helpful when searching for the authority of Scripture. Just as the objective principles of math can be acknowledged by men, so those who helped to canonize Scripture recognized its authority outside of themselves, or objectively.
Here is a second problem. No Roman Catholic would argue with the fact that there have been false, or bad traditions that have disguised themselves as tradition in the past. Many have not even been disguised. Now, I acknowledge that many bad or false traditions have been purged from the Roman Catholic church over the years, and that is a good thing. What I find contestable are the words good and bad, when applied to Tradition. Now, if it is true that Roman Catholic's place the Holy Tradition as their highest degree of authority, then how in God's Name can subjective terms such as bad or good be applied to it? If the Holy Tradition is the yardstick by which we must measure everything else, then how is it even possible that it can be questioned or deemed bad? That would be like saying that there is such a thing as good math or bad math. Now, when I say bad math I do not mean one who is poor at math, nor when I say good math, one who excels at math. I mean math itself. Math itself has no subjective qualities about it; it simply is. We must conform our minds to the principles of math, not the other way around. Likewise, if Holy Tradition is the highest authority, how then would it begin to make sense to question it? If it is, in fact, the highest authority, then we should conform ourselves to it, no questions asked. But once we begin the nonsense of saying there is good absolute authority, worthy of our devotion, and bad absolute authority, then we have begun to hold Tradition up to a higher standard, a standard objective to it's subjectivity. Now what would be the candidate for Tradition to be subject to? Men, who are creatures prone to change? I shouldn't think so. Then what? Why, the Holy Scriptures of course.
The last argument that many Roman Catholics like to raise goes something like this: both Tradition and Scripture are subject to divine revelation, which comes from God and empowers both equally. Now, this is perhaps the best of their arguments so far, but it remains unconvincing. One must ask this crucial question: How do we receive divine revelation? Of course, this is the key point where Protestants and Roman Catholics answer differently, Roman Catholics answering that they receive divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, while Protestants answer only the Scriptures. Personally, in reference to the Catholic argument, I can think of nothing more circularly problematic. Maybe I just need to ask the Lord to increase my faith...for when receiving divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, which have all erred in the past, sans Scripture, then I'd consider myself in deep doodoo if I placed my foundation upon something that has failed, and is certainly prone to fail again.
10 comments:
It seems to me that your math analogy works better for the Orthodox/Catholic concept of Tradition (with a capital T, and that rhymes with P, and that stands for...err) in general rather than Scripture in particular, at least in terms of Mathematics being a gradually developing science, rather than a closed canon as Scripture is. Scripture is less like math in general, and more like the core laws of Euclidean Geometry which form a strong foundation for further truths. In the Catholic understanding, Scripture and Tradition are not separate entities by any means. St. Paul says that if Christ did not die and rise, then our faith is nothing. The reason we know that Jesus ascended into Heaven isn't that we read it in a book, but because the people who actually lived with and knew him testified to it, and those who learned from them passed the Good News on. The Scripture is part of what was handed on, but not all, nor was it ever meant to be all.
Your thoughts also fail to take into account that rejecting the Magesterium and Tradition while holding onto Scripture hardly prevents error. Solo Scriptura, T0, what have you, can produce some whacked out stuff. I say rather that I shouldn't trust those who use "Scripture Alone", when they have historically gone wrong without the guidance of the Deposit of Faith. Read what Patriarch Jerimias II said to the Lutherans sometime, it is interesting where the agreements and disagreements lay. Here's the Money Quote:
"But since you are content with some of the sacraments, even though you have dangerously distorted and changed the written teachings of the Old and New [Testament] to your own purpose, you further say that some of them are not sacraments, but only traditions, not having been established in Holy [scriptural] Texts. But you oppose them in every way, just as chrismation, which was accepted even by Saint John Chrysostom. Some others you drag along as does a torrent. And then you call yourself theologians!"
Hey Sam, thanks for your post. I'll try and clarify my math analogy, and try and apply it more susinctly.
What I was trying to say is that God's Word, or divine revelation, is like math, in the sense that math exists outside of our discoveries about it. We can discover, or fail to discover, divine revelation, but it exists regardless of whether we know it or not. The main issue is of course how we receive that divine revelation.
Now, we don't teach with math books from 1000 years ago, because they are lacking in some of the more recent mathematical discoveries, and even errors. My only point was that, knowing that Tradition has contained errors in the past, then it is not wholly trustworthy to be errorless.
Now of course this would apply to ALL interpretation. I should certainly apply my reasoning to all subjects, including myself. The overall point is this: ALL human subjects are fallible. Now, this doesn't mean that we can't say objectively true things, but we can not be infallble. As Paul says: "For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one."
Hey, dre. I know you told me about this a month ago, but I SWEAR, I didn't have/make the time to read it til now.
I guess I'll address the issues as you put it.
1. Is Scripture like math or something else? 3 reasons for scripture being the farthest thing from a hard science like math.
A - We could have never come up with infallible Scripture on our own whereas we can come up with math systems that work.
B - We would never know it if it weren't revealed to us. The lamp that guides our feet would never have been found unless it was lit for us. Math system and moral codes need to be cross checked with reality and found to be true. (that's not to say that we need not cross-check Scripture with reality. For one, it doesn't do much unless we apply it to our lives, and two, if it didn't correspond to reality it wouldn't be infallible - yes it's circular but that leads me to my next point.)
C - If anything, Scripture is closer to a language. It's "the language of faith." For one, it is handed down to us even if we don't have much understanding of it. Two, it still works when we "say" it properly even if we don't know why. Three, we must try to make sense of it and unpack it into plain language, not by adding to it, but by rightly defining it so that it makes sense to our clouded minds. Whereas math's growth is something that is theory driven (opposite data driven.)
As to your second... argument(?) where you argue is it Holy Tradition or Scripture we use as the yardstick to judge all other... um sticks? Well if both of them come from the same author, and of the same language, then the question itself doesn't make much sense. Holy Tradition has more importance only in the fact that it is, in many respects "the language that Scripture was written in." That, plus this language is fully complete and preserved when all 3 authorities of this language are working together. Take away one, and the others are bound to fall.
As to your third argument/question, where do we get divine revelation? According the "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church" it is and only ever was/shall be Christ. The Holy Tradition, the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Magisteriam. Christ is the first, last and only Word of God, and all such "Divine Revelations" can only be divine if they are (somehow) a part of Christ. This can be unpacked a lot further, but my wrists are getting tired.
I hope this helps. And may God and our Holy Mother guide you into His eternal light/life.
Pax Vobiscum,
Mark T.
Mark-
You entirely misunderstood me. God's Word IS like math because it is objective, that was my main point. It is NOT subjective. It is a reality that exists outside of our interpretations, or else we're in big trouble. If we fail to understand math and its inherent, objective principles, then we will fail miserably at math.
When "Christ," becomes our yardstick to judge all other lengths, then that becomes a problem. Let me explain. "Christ," especially in our day where words mean close to nothing, can be bent many ways. I contend that Scripture is the standard which must be used to judge all other "standards," so I make the case that we get our understanding of who Christ is from the Scriptures themselves. As Christians, we are all given part of Christ's authority, but does that mean my word is as authoritative as the sacred Scriptures, or any other subject for that matter? No!
And by your argument at the end, I suppose that you think the Protestant church is bound to fall because we don't have "Holy Tradition" or the Magesteriam on our side?
My underlying point is this: who or what's to SAY that any human subject's word is as good as Scripture? How can both be "objective realities" if they've butted heads in the past? Reality is ALWAYS consistent with itself. To what authority do we turn when Scripture and subject X disagree (for they have on a number of occasions in the past)?
Hey dre, thanks for the quick response.
I'll just get right to it.
1. Sorry to have misunderstood you, but I do like the analogy of "language" better than math, for obvious reasons.
2. I say Holy Scripture can be bent just as much as Holy Tradition. And yes, I do think we get our understanding of who Christ is from the Scriptures themselves but not ONLY from the Scriptures.
3. I do think one side is bound to fall or give in, and I truly think it's Protestants for several reasons that I won't go into here. However, if Catholicism falls, it will fall when a Pope or council makes a statement concerning doctrine or the Christian life that is blatantly contrary to Scripture or blatantly contrary to a previous recognized council.
4. But that's the kicker. We know that for Scripture or anything else to be totally infallible, you can't have one blatant contradiction of truth or of a disagreement in doctrine in any part of it. The high and lofty claim of Catholics to have more of this infallibility means that we have more to cross-check with the rest for resonance, in order to maintain the claim "infallible."
Yet in our 2000 year history, no one has yet to find an "infallible" extra-biblical statement that is in blatant disagreement/contrast with the Bible or any other of the Holy Traditions.
If you find such a statement, then I guess the game is up. But until otherwise noted, we still have a perfect record (not by our own power, but by the grace of God and his Holy Spirit that guides and protects the Church.)
Much Love,
Mark T.
P.S. Andre, I encourage you not to go around and copying and pasting things you find on the web and posting them as refuting evidence.
There have been many people who have claimed to have found blatant disagreements in the official church councils. I remind you that there are many people who have claimed to have found blatant disagreements in Scripture as well (i.e. the different reported times of Jesus' crucifixion.)
As in the example I mentioned, the disagreements sometimes don't come down to contradictions of truths but of perspectives.
i.e. do some homework before presenting Joe Schmo's blog as "solid evidence"
"That, plus this language is fully complete and preserved when all 3 authorities of this language are working together. Take away one, and the others are bound to fall."
You describe these three authorities, Mark, as "The Holy Tradition, the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Magisteriam."
Just to make sure, are you saying that without holy tradition, God's Word would be "bound to fall?"
What if he had not created man. Would His Word fall then?
~Adam
Hey it's ADAM!!!! YAY!!
To answer your first question; yes, for two reasons.
1. Historically, without Holy Tradition, we simply WOULD NOT have had the New Testament writings.
I want to take some time on this because if you are to understand anything about Catholicism, you NEED to get this one idea into your head: God's Word was FIRST and FOREMOST Christ, and SECONDLY, He passed divine revelation (Himself and the Gospel) to the Apostles THROUGH ORAL TRADITION, NOT WRITINGS - CHRIST DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD DOWN OR COMMAND SUCH. This is because there was not a single society the was literary based, at the time. Oral Traditions of Christ were not only easier to spread, but also corresponded to the way people thought, believed, and lived. THE GOSPEL WAS TRADITION FIRST.
2. The New Testament is not complete without this Tradition. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE WITHOUT IT, only to defend it. St. John's Gospel even says that there would be no way to write down everything, even if he personally had knowledge of those things. St. Paul never wrote exhaustively; if anything, just short synopsizes, so that the church or person he was writing to would get clarity on what the Tradition all meant, or where they strayed from it. HE NEVER INTENDED HIS WRITINGS TO BE EXHAUSTIVE.
3. Also, as a bonus reason, historically, groups of people who have advocated a "nuda scriptura" (naked scripture) have mostly wrong intentions e.g. Southerners advocating slavery, Arians advocating Jesus as a creature, etc. Of which, I see Sola Scriptura slipping into constantly.
To your answer your second question; as a rule of thumb, any question beginning with a "If God had [done/not done] + [specific action]..." my default answer has to be "I don't know."
(Besides the most obvious fact that if God had not created man, but said He did so, their would be major problems.)
Hope that helps, Adam.
Mark T.
Andre, I don't know you, but I've read a few of your posts and like your blog quite a bit. Anyways, I thought that this was a good post worth responding to, which I did here: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/09/which-traditions-are-authentic.html. If you get a chance, take a look, and let me know what you think. Pax Christi!
Post a Comment