Hello!
Anyone that might be headed to this blogspot is directed over to a new one, effective immediately. I am not sure I will abandon this one. But, for several reasons I find it beneficial to move over to http://lumen-gentium.blogspot.com/, not the least of which is the fact that it has a more familiar (and shorter!) URL. Please join me over there for what is sure to be a much more handsome and up-to-date blogspot.
Thanks.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
One apostolic deposit
Continuing on in my interaction with T. Vick's interaction with Yves Congar (http://www.shadowsofdivinethings.blogspot.com/), I offer the following observations and insights. As I had indicated earlier the Vatican II document Dei Verbum has rather a lot to say about the nature of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and how they relate to (and line up against) each other. After discussing the natures of these two constituents of the one apostolic deposit of faith, the document discusses the role of the Magisterium in serving the apostolic deposit as its "authoritative" interpreter.
Note the following quote from the Council fathers in this document:
"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)" See this document at www.vatican.va under "Archives" & "Vatican II"
In my first post, I quoted the first line of 10 above. It is the summary line of the relation between Scripture and Tradition, but it seems beneficial here to give the immediate context of the comments. It will help us in our endeavor to interact with T. Vick's commentary.
First, let us note the following comment in Vick's most recent post on Tradition (Part II): "the Roman Catholic Church, time and again, has placed Tradition over and against Scriptures repeatedly when deciding certain seemingly important issues not delineated in Scripture (e.g. Purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary, infallibility of the Pope/Magisterium, etc.)"
It is difficult to interpret the comment, I think. Does this mean that to place Tradition "over and against" the Scriptures is to run contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures? That would be a bold statement indeed, implying a level of confidence in one's own understanding of the Scriptures that would need some intense justification. Catholics appeal to various portions of the Scriptures for support for the beliefs in all the doctrines he lists here. At times, this is done in a simple way against an antagonist. For example, if Matthew 16:18-19 doesn't mean what the Catholic Church believes it means, then what exactly does it mean? That is to say, it is the Catholic interpretation of that passage which makes the most prima facie sense of it (rather than leaving it shrouded in mystery), whether or not it is the correct interpretation. Or with regard to support for Purgatory from 1 Cor. 3? If the meaning of the passage is not that a man is "being saved, yet though as through fire" after death in order to "burn away" his worthless works, then what does that passage obviously mean? Again, the question can be put back to the interlocutor as a challenge, and it will be admitted that alternative views on the passage are not as prima facie true, whether or not the Catholic view is ultimately correct.
However, it would further be admitted by any honest Catholic that the doctrines do not necessarily jump off the page at you and bowl you over with their overwhelming clarity and obviousness. But, to claim that they are unreasonable by virtue of being contrary to the Scriptures would be too bold, I think. It is the first inclination of a Protestant to cry "unbiblical!" against a Catholic doctrine that they don't hold to merely because of their particular tradition. That would be the most predictable response, but also the most unsuccessful. Is it really to be believed that a given Protestant has a better understanding of the Scriptures than did, say, Sts. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or any of the other doctores ecclesiae? There is much to be said for the Catholicity of the Church's major teachers throughout its history.
Another interpretation of Vick's comment, however, is that Catholics hold Tradition in a place as if it's separated from the Scriptures and can be the Scripture's arbiter. I think the quote given above does a pretty good job of showing that not to be the case. They come from the "same divine wellspring" and merge together, as it were, to form the one sacred deposit of faith given by Christ to the Church. And as regards Congar's comments on the possiblity of Tradition being self-sufficient, it is reasonable to give this an interpretation which doesn't commit him to obvious contradiction. But first, we must revisit again the comments of Dei Verbum. Yes, it is possible that Tradition be self-sufficient and in a sense necessary when Bibles are not had, as they have not been had in many times and various places. The very local Councils to declare the NT canon (Hippo 393 and Carthage 397) do so quite late on the scene. This is not ratified by an Ecumenical Council until that of Trent. Therefore, this fact alone would seem to necessitate a certain self-sufficiency of Sacred Tradition as that which preserves the whole "teaching, life, and worship" of the Church when there is no access to the Scriptures on the part of the masses. However, it is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that the two together and on a theological par with one another are the constituents of the one deposit of faith. This is what is actually the case, rather than possible. So rather than thinking that the Catholic Church has so much to answer for, one could rather pose a question back to his 'Protesting' brothers. If the Scriptures themselves do such a good job on their own of preserving unity, how come this never actually occurs. If sola scriptura is the rule, what about when just about no one has access to the Scriptures (as in many instances of history); or what about the fact that an historical "slippery slope" into denominationalism arose from the dogma, whereas those two communions (Catholic and Orthodox) who advocate Scriptures and Tradition as necessarily together (and with a guiding Magistra to boot) have not fallen into denominationalism. Again, this may be prima facie stuff, but one must feel the force of the challenges.
T. Vick gives the following comment with reference to the impossibility of accepting a teaching that contradicts what is taught by Scripture: "The above claim made by Congar is certainly problematic with issues that are not contained in the Scriptures." This seems confusing. It is one thing to contradict the Scriptures. It is another to hold a view like I enumerated in my first post "Tradition and Traditions." The NT never claims to, nor is it even reasonable to believe it does exhaust the riches contained within the life and ministry of Our Lord or of the early Church. If anything, the very nature of the collections of books in the NT would seem to lend itself to an opposite view (which is essentially the argument of Newman). Given the nature and types and historically oriented aspects of the books of the NT (and the brevity of it), one would almost expect something like Sacred Tradition and/or a Magistra in order to guide the Church in all truth and lead it into all unity. Again, the Protestant here struggles with the history of his own religious tradition, which hardly could be said to tend toward unity, and with many and various mutual contradictions between denominations, it would be reasonable to question whether the position of 'Bible Alone' lends itself toward truth. But, the primary point is the fact of the very specific and rather small canon of the NT as being inherently not capable of exhausting the vast riches of the whole "teaching, life and worship" (as Vatican II puts it) of either Our Lord or the original apostolic community, though the Scriptures do obviously provide the privileged window into these things.
In this context, Vick makes a comment about sola scriptura as being that which is sufficient to "lead one to saving faith." However, it seemed to me from Vick's several postings so far that he is not merely concerned with saving faith. Clearly, how to be saved would be chief among a Christian's concerns. However, what of liturgy and how to worship the Lord? Is that clearly spelled out in the Scriptures? What about one's own moral and social life? Certainly we are all of us very concerned with that. There are general guidelines given (or implied) in the Scriptures, but what of wanting more? And the guidelines are surely insufficient. Protestants are all over the map when it comes to, say, sexual ethics or that having to do in any sense with life (beginning of life, ending of life, etc.) And what of the obviousness of the Scriptures in matters of salvation? "Justification by faith alone" is so obviously true? The why are there no clear teachings of such a dogma prior to Luther? Why is it then that the universal understanding of faith and works was "faith working itself out through love" (a phrase Luther and Clavin frequently quote and frequently belittle)? Why would it be, given the obviousness of the dogma, that other than by appealing to Romans 4 & 5 and extracting out Eph 2:8-9 for assistance, that one would otherwise have a rather hard time proving the doctrine from the Scriptures? Whereas, prima facie again, God will judge us according to our works seems to practically spill from the pages of the entire Bible, especially from the words of Our Lord himself.
One more area of contention needs to be addressed. The following comments display, I think, a profoundly misguided view of the historical situation in Christianity. Vick states, "However, according to the Roman Catholic Church the Magisterium has a special grace which corresponds to the mission it was entrusted with; namely deciding issues that it thinks that the body of believers is incapable of deciding in a unanimous and clear fashion."
One hesitates to disagree so strongly, but I feel compelled to say: Not at all! What the Magisterium (that is to say, the bishops all together) has historically done is to eradicate errors that already exist in the body politic. What was the primary concern of the first Ecumenical Council, if not Arianism (which, btw, was so incredibly widespread that even bishops believed it)? Look back among especially the first 7 Councils and what do you find? This person condemned, that view denied, this issue clarified, etc. This wasn't just willy-nilly on the part of the bishops. It happened in a reactive way, in order to clarify the teaching (usually about Christ) regarding matters of faith. Note the following:
Nicaea (325) – Condemned Arius and issued the Nicene Creed which we recite on most Sundays in mass.
Constantinople I (381) – Reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and condemned Apollinaris
Ephesus (431) – Condemned Nestorius and approved Cyril’s letters; Mary is said to be theotokos (the “God bearer”) in this council
Chalcedon (451) – Condemned Euthyches, approved Leo’s Tome, and issued a formula of Christological faith
Constantinople III (680-1) - Condemned Monotholitism (belief that Christ had only one will) and affirmed a will corresponding to each of the 2 natures.
So, the point I'm trying to make is that contra the impression had by Vick, it is not that the Magisterium thinks that perhaps we might be incapable of understanding these matters. Rather, it is that we are incapable of doing so and have shown it throughout the history of the Church. It would be silly and arrogant to think that any of the early heretics and their heresies were born out of their just "missing the obvious." They were all rather learned men and every single one of them appealed to this or that portion of Scripture as justification for their respective doctrines. It is an historical fact that the Councils come together not because we might get it wrong if left to our own (i.e., without an infallible guide to settle the matter finally) but because we do get it wrong, time and again. On our own, without Sacred Tradition or a Magisterium, we are not prone toward the fullness of truth. We are prone toward significant error intermingled with truth. History bears this out. It is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons to not be a Protestant. Whatever view they have that they call "orthodox" regarding God and Christ, they inherit from the first six Councils of the Church anyway, as they inherit their NT canon from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. What more needs to be argued? To claim that one doesn't need the Councils and at the same time to use the Councils is incoherent. This is a general line of reasoning more directed at Protestants as such, rather than at T. Vick. But, it's likely that these comments apply to his own views, as they were spurred out of a reflection on his own historically insensitive statement on the nature of the Councils.
Note the following quote from the Council fathers in this document:
"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)" See this document at www.vatican.va under "Archives" & "Vatican II"
In my first post, I quoted the first line of 10 above. It is the summary line of the relation between Scripture and Tradition, but it seems beneficial here to give the immediate context of the comments. It will help us in our endeavor to interact with T. Vick's commentary.
First, let us note the following comment in Vick's most recent post on Tradition (Part II): "the Roman Catholic Church, time and again, has placed Tradition over and against Scriptures repeatedly when deciding certain seemingly important issues not delineated in Scripture (e.g. Purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary, infallibility of the Pope/Magisterium, etc.)"
It is difficult to interpret the comment, I think. Does this mean that to place Tradition "over and against" the Scriptures is to run contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures? That would be a bold statement indeed, implying a level of confidence in one's own understanding of the Scriptures that would need some intense justification. Catholics appeal to various portions of the Scriptures for support for the beliefs in all the doctrines he lists here. At times, this is done in a simple way against an antagonist. For example, if Matthew 16:18-19 doesn't mean what the Catholic Church believes it means, then what exactly does it mean? That is to say, it is the Catholic interpretation of that passage which makes the most prima facie sense of it (rather than leaving it shrouded in mystery), whether or not it is the correct interpretation. Or with regard to support for Purgatory from 1 Cor. 3? If the meaning of the passage is not that a man is "being saved, yet though as through fire" after death in order to "burn away" his worthless works, then what does that passage obviously mean? Again, the question can be put back to the interlocutor as a challenge, and it will be admitted that alternative views on the passage are not as prima facie true, whether or not the Catholic view is ultimately correct.
However, it would further be admitted by any honest Catholic that the doctrines do not necessarily jump off the page at you and bowl you over with their overwhelming clarity and obviousness. But, to claim that they are unreasonable by virtue of being contrary to the Scriptures would be too bold, I think. It is the first inclination of a Protestant to cry "unbiblical!" against a Catholic doctrine that they don't hold to merely because of their particular tradition. That would be the most predictable response, but also the most unsuccessful. Is it really to be believed that a given Protestant has a better understanding of the Scriptures than did, say, Sts. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or any of the other doctores ecclesiae? There is much to be said for the Catholicity of the Church's major teachers throughout its history.
Another interpretation of Vick's comment, however, is that Catholics hold Tradition in a place as if it's separated from the Scriptures and can be the Scripture's arbiter. I think the quote given above does a pretty good job of showing that not to be the case. They come from the "same divine wellspring" and merge together, as it were, to form the one sacred deposit of faith given by Christ to the Church. And as regards Congar's comments on the possiblity of Tradition being self-sufficient, it is reasonable to give this an interpretation which doesn't commit him to obvious contradiction. But first, we must revisit again the comments of Dei Verbum. Yes, it is possible that Tradition be self-sufficient and in a sense necessary when Bibles are not had, as they have not been had in many times and various places. The very local Councils to declare the NT canon (Hippo 393 and Carthage 397) do so quite late on the scene. This is not ratified by an Ecumenical Council until that of Trent. Therefore, this fact alone would seem to necessitate a certain self-sufficiency of Sacred Tradition as that which preserves the whole "teaching, life, and worship" of the Church when there is no access to the Scriptures on the part of the masses. However, it is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that the two together and on a theological par with one another are the constituents of the one deposit of faith. This is what is actually the case, rather than possible. So rather than thinking that the Catholic Church has so much to answer for, one could rather pose a question back to his 'Protesting' brothers. If the Scriptures themselves do such a good job on their own of preserving unity, how come this never actually occurs. If sola scriptura is the rule, what about when just about no one has access to the Scriptures (as in many instances of history); or what about the fact that an historical "slippery slope" into denominationalism arose from the dogma, whereas those two communions (Catholic and Orthodox) who advocate Scriptures and Tradition as necessarily together (and with a guiding Magistra to boot) have not fallen into denominationalism. Again, this may be prima facie stuff, but one must feel the force of the challenges.
T. Vick gives the following comment with reference to the impossibility of accepting a teaching that contradicts what is taught by Scripture: "The above claim made by Congar is certainly problematic with issues that are not contained in the Scriptures." This seems confusing. It is one thing to contradict the Scriptures. It is another to hold a view like I enumerated in my first post "Tradition and Traditions." The NT never claims to, nor is it even reasonable to believe it does exhaust the riches contained within the life and ministry of Our Lord or of the early Church. If anything, the very nature of the collections of books in the NT would seem to lend itself to an opposite view (which is essentially the argument of Newman). Given the nature and types and historically oriented aspects of the books of the NT (and the brevity of it), one would almost expect something like Sacred Tradition and/or a Magistra in order to guide the Church in all truth and lead it into all unity. Again, the Protestant here struggles with the history of his own religious tradition, which hardly could be said to tend toward unity, and with many and various mutual contradictions between denominations, it would be reasonable to question whether the position of 'Bible Alone' lends itself toward truth. But, the primary point is the fact of the very specific and rather small canon of the NT as being inherently not capable of exhausting the vast riches of the whole "teaching, life and worship" (as Vatican II puts it) of either Our Lord or the original apostolic community, though the Scriptures do obviously provide the privileged window into these things.
In this context, Vick makes a comment about sola scriptura as being that which is sufficient to "lead one to saving faith." However, it seemed to me from Vick's several postings so far that he is not merely concerned with saving faith. Clearly, how to be saved would be chief among a Christian's concerns. However, what of liturgy and how to worship the Lord? Is that clearly spelled out in the Scriptures? What about one's own moral and social life? Certainly we are all of us very concerned with that. There are general guidelines given (or implied) in the Scriptures, but what of wanting more? And the guidelines are surely insufficient. Protestants are all over the map when it comes to, say, sexual ethics or that having to do in any sense with life (beginning of life, ending of life, etc.) And what of the obviousness of the Scriptures in matters of salvation? "Justification by faith alone" is so obviously true? The why are there no clear teachings of such a dogma prior to Luther? Why is it then that the universal understanding of faith and works was "faith working itself out through love" (a phrase Luther and Clavin frequently quote and frequently belittle)? Why would it be, given the obviousness of the dogma, that other than by appealing to Romans 4 & 5 and extracting out Eph 2:8-9 for assistance, that one would otherwise have a rather hard time proving the doctrine from the Scriptures? Whereas, prima facie again, God will judge us according to our works seems to practically spill from the pages of the entire Bible, especially from the words of Our Lord himself.
One more area of contention needs to be addressed. The following comments display, I think, a profoundly misguided view of the historical situation in Christianity. Vick states, "However, according to the Roman Catholic Church the Magisterium has a special grace which corresponds to the mission it was entrusted with; namely deciding issues that it thinks that the body of believers is incapable of deciding in a unanimous and clear fashion."
One hesitates to disagree so strongly, but I feel compelled to say: Not at all! What the Magisterium (that is to say, the bishops all together) has historically done is to eradicate errors that already exist in the body politic. What was the primary concern of the first Ecumenical Council, if not Arianism (which, btw, was so incredibly widespread that even bishops believed it)? Look back among especially the first 7 Councils and what do you find? This person condemned, that view denied, this issue clarified, etc. This wasn't just willy-nilly on the part of the bishops. It happened in a reactive way, in order to clarify the teaching (usually about Christ) regarding matters of faith. Note the following:
Nicaea (325) – Condemned Arius and issued the Nicene Creed which we recite on most Sundays in mass.
Constantinople I (381) – Reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and condemned Apollinaris
Ephesus (431) – Condemned Nestorius and approved Cyril’s letters; Mary is said to be theotokos (the “God bearer”) in this council
Chalcedon (451) – Condemned Euthyches, approved Leo’s Tome, and issued a formula of Christological faith
Constantinople III (680-1) - Condemned Monotholitism (belief that Christ had only one will) and affirmed a will corresponding to each of the 2 natures.
So, the point I'm trying to make is that contra the impression had by Vick, it is not that the Magisterium thinks that perhaps we might be incapable of understanding these matters. Rather, it is that we are incapable of doing so and have shown it throughout the history of the Church. It would be silly and arrogant to think that any of the early heretics and their heresies were born out of their just "missing the obvious." They were all rather learned men and every single one of them appealed to this or that portion of Scripture as justification for their respective doctrines. It is an historical fact that the Councils come together not because we might get it wrong if left to our own (i.e., without an infallible guide to settle the matter finally) but because we do get it wrong, time and again. On our own, without Sacred Tradition or a Magisterium, we are not prone toward the fullness of truth. We are prone toward significant error intermingled with truth. History bears this out. It is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons to not be a Protestant. Whatever view they have that they call "orthodox" regarding God and Christ, they inherit from the first six Councils of the Church anyway, as they inherit their NT canon from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. What more needs to be argued? To claim that one doesn't need the Councils and at the same time to use the Councils is incoherent. This is a general line of reasoning more directed at Protestants as such, rather than at T. Vick. But, it's likely that these comments apply to his own views, as they were spurred out of a reflection on his own historically insensitive statement on the nature of the Councils.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tradition & Traditions
T. Vick, who is himself a blogger with a fine page (found here: http://www.shadowsofdivinethings.blogspot.com/), has recently begun what will be a series of reflections on the greatly important issue of Christian Tradition. I simply wanted to post a few thoughts with reference to his thoughts in his post. However, before I get into the body of my interaction with his comments, I should note the accute difficulty I find in avoiding two extremes in these types of engagements. On the one hand, it is easy to come across as condescending when you are disagreeing with someone and challenging their views. On the other hand, it seems easy to become pedantic - teacherly. Either way it seems to make for a bad option. I hope to neither sound patronizing nor like I have so much to teach because the bulk of anything I would have to share I either got from someone else originally or later came to find my "insights" have been expressed throughout the centuries by men and women much more able than I. Now onto the meat of the discussion.
While it is certainly true, as Vick notes, that the Sacred Scriptures do occupy a special place in the overall deposit of faith given to the Church, it needs to be made clear just what are the places of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in the eyes of Catholicism. As Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J. in his book Magisterium notes, the Scriptures (and especially the NT) are a "privileged witness to apostolic tradition." No other witness to that original apostolic tradition is privileged in the same way. However, the Catholic Church holds that, according to Dei Verbum of Vatican II, "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church," (DV, 10). That being said, Sullivan, S.J. makes the point that although the Scriptures do have this privileged place, they could not possibly by themselves exhaust all the vast riches of either the life of Our Lord or of the early Church. Many other Catholics, including the prominent John Henry Cardinal Newman, have also noted this. So given this admission, it stands to reason that God would leave with his Church either (1) a magistra or (2) something very much like Sacred Tradition--or both.
But, as this relates to the comments of T. Vick, it would be readily granted that many things believed by the Church up to the time of the Protestant Reformation had no clear and overwhelming evidence from the Scriptures. But then the question for the Reformers, and all those who follow in their wake, is this: what makes anyone think that something must be (or is allowed to be) believed iff it is clearly laid out in the Scriptures? It would seem that to even bring up 2 Thess. 2:15, as Vick does, would preclude such an understanding of our relation to the Scriptures because it would seem somewhat evident from that verse that it is not the case that we may only believe that which is explicitly and manifestly advocated in the Scriptures. Without having first dealt with this crucial question, why should a Protestant, therefore, feel perfectly within his rights to protest anything like what he lists (Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, Infallibility of the Pope, etc.) other than by simple recourse to the Protestant tradition in which he finds himself?
Moreover, what is found in several Councils of the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation is not always accepted (or condemned) with uniformity by Protestants. Does God operate through the Councils of the Church or doesn't he? If he does operate through them, which ones? And how would we know the answer to that question anyway. If we follow the rules of St. Vincent of Lerins as Vick gives them, I submit that we would all condemn Iconoclasm along with the 7th Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II), and we would thereby venerate icons, statuary, and crucifixes, as has been done since time immemorial. Or speaking of time immemorial, what of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The 4th Lateran Council (1215) prior to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas who gave the doctrine so much elaboration (and much prior to Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517) phrased what happens in the Holy Eucharist as this: "transsubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem." "The bread is transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into blood." Many Protestants will say "Yes" to the Councils, but only the first four (or first six perhaps) and I think the candid world should know why these only.
One other quick comment: it is interesting that Vick comments that perhaps one of the ways in which Tradition has fleshed itself out has been in the Creeds and some Councils. I have long found it fascinating that the Nicene Creed, which even some Protestants (e.g., Presbyterians) finds themselves reciting at important times of the year, has the following lines:
We believe in one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal], and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins...
Protestants are often quick to point out that they accept the teachings contained within the decrees of the first four Holy and Ecumenical Councils, the first one of which was that of Nicaea, out of which comes the Nicene Creed with the above lines. Notice the marks of the Church. It is said to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. How many churches I wonder are vying for that job? I've never known of a single Protestant communion to seriously do so (Anglicans not to be included in this comment). Also, what of the second line? Do any Protestants really acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
Well, as I said, here one finds just a few simple reflections on T. Vick's reflections. As a wonderful professor of mine once said, "you can take this with however many grains of salt you like." But I do very much look forward the the rest of T. Vick's comments. I'm sure they will be well thought-out and of interest to everyone curious about the issue of Christian Tradition. I intend to reflect on them as they are published.
While it is certainly true, as Vick notes, that the Sacred Scriptures do occupy a special place in the overall deposit of faith given to the Church, it needs to be made clear just what are the places of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in the eyes of Catholicism. As Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J. in his book Magisterium notes, the Scriptures (and especially the NT) are a "privileged witness to apostolic tradition." No other witness to that original apostolic tradition is privileged in the same way. However, the Catholic Church holds that, according to Dei Verbum of Vatican II, "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church," (DV, 10). That being said, Sullivan, S.J. makes the point that although the Scriptures do have this privileged place, they could not possibly by themselves exhaust all the vast riches of either the life of Our Lord or of the early Church. Many other Catholics, including the prominent John Henry Cardinal Newman, have also noted this. So given this admission, it stands to reason that God would leave with his Church either (1) a magistra or (2) something very much like Sacred Tradition--or both.
But, as this relates to the comments of T. Vick, it would be readily granted that many things believed by the Church up to the time of the Protestant Reformation had no clear and overwhelming evidence from the Scriptures. But then the question for the Reformers, and all those who follow in their wake, is this: what makes anyone think that something must be (or is allowed to be) believed iff it is clearly laid out in the Scriptures? It would seem that to even bring up 2 Thess. 2:15, as Vick does, would preclude such an understanding of our relation to the Scriptures because it would seem somewhat evident from that verse that it is not the case that we may only believe that which is explicitly and manifestly advocated in the Scriptures. Without having first dealt with this crucial question, why should a Protestant, therefore, feel perfectly within his rights to protest anything like what he lists (Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, Infallibility of the Pope, etc.) other than by simple recourse to the Protestant tradition in which he finds himself?
Moreover, what is found in several Councils of the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation is not always accepted (or condemned) with uniformity by Protestants. Does God operate through the Councils of the Church or doesn't he? If he does operate through them, which ones? And how would we know the answer to that question anyway. If we follow the rules of St. Vincent of Lerins as Vick gives them, I submit that we would all condemn Iconoclasm along with the 7th Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II), and we would thereby venerate icons, statuary, and crucifixes, as has been done since time immemorial. Or speaking of time immemorial, what of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The 4th Lateran Council (1215) prior to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas who gave the doctrine so much elaboration (and much prior to Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517) phrased what happens in the Holy Eucharist as this: "transsubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem." "The bread is transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into blood." Many Protestants will say "Yes" to the Councils, but only the first four (or first six perhaps) and I think the candid world should know why these only.
One other quick comment: it is interesting that Vick comments that perhaps one of the ways in which Tradition has fleshed itself out has been in the Creeds and some Councils. I have long found it fascinating that the Nicene Creed, which even some Protestants (e.g., Presbyterians) finds themselves reciting at important times of the year, has the following lines:
We believe in one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal], and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins...
Protestants are often quick to point out that they accept the teachings contained within the decrees of the first four Holy and Ecumenical Councils, the first one of which was that of Nicaea, out of which comes the Nicene Creed with the above lines. Notice the marks of the Church. It is said to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. How many churches I wonder are vying for that job? I've never known of a single Protestant communion to seriously do so (Anglicans not to be included in this comment). Also, what of the second line? Do any Protestants really acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
Well, as I said, here one finds just a few simple reflections on T. Vick's reflections. As a wonderful professor of mine once said, "you can take this with however many grains of salt you like." But I do very much look forward the the rest of T. Vick's comments. I'm sure they will be well thought-out and of interest to everyone curious about the issue of Christian Tradition. I intend to reflect on them as they are published.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
