scott@watmath.waterloo.edu (Scott Goodwin) (06/17/89)
Could someone summarize the main aguments for and against Tradition and suggest some references? -- Scott D. Goodwin, CS Dept., U. Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H1 PHONE:1-403-492-2821 (office) 1-403-433-4570 (home) UUCP :scott@alberta.uucp
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (06/17/89)
alberta!scott@watmath.waterloo.edu (Scott Goodwin) asked for the main arguments for and against tradition, and some references. The most entertaining references are the original documents from the Reformation, e.g. Luther's "Babylonian Captivity of the Church". Just about any random document by Luther or Calvin will have something inflammatory on the subject. Any good history of the Reformation (or indeed any general book on Church History) should tell you what the issues are. You might try Roland Bainton's biography of Luther (I think it's called "Here I Stand"). Presumably somebody else will be able to recommend things to look at from the Catholic side. Let me summarize the issues as I see them, more or less from a moderate Protestant perspective. The following is sort of schematic. It assumes a general understanding of what was going on in the Reformation, since this message was long enough already without going into detailed historical background. In particular, I'm not going into detail as to the ways in which Protestants believed the Catholic Church had diverged from Scripture. First, as to the question of what tradition is. I think its role changed over time. Initially the problem within the Church tended to be largely one of accurate information. There were a number of highly imaginative versions of Jesus' life and message going around. Tradition meant that you had been taught by someone who had been taught ... back to the apostles. And so you had a reliable source of information. I think by and large this was a sensible and useful criterion. Over time the issue came to be interpretation of the Gospel, both in new cultural and philosophical contexts and when new issues came up. In this case tradition came to be embodied in a body of people who were the legitimate successors of the Apostles, authorized to make these interpretations, and in a body of past decisions. (This authorization was by God, who at least in some general sense was considered to guarantee the whole process.) In the first phase Scripture was not a possible alternative. Indeed which books should be accepted was one of the main issues. By the second phase, there was a generally accepted Scripture, but it was viewed as being more or less a parallel source of authority. Both the Scripture and the living tradition of the Church embodied the Apostolic authority, one by being authored by (or at least associated with) an apostle, the other by being their authorized successors. There is an undoubted advantage to having a single, authorized interpreter for Christianity. Simply by looking at Protestants you can see how messy it is not to have this. Not only is it untidy to have all these different denominations. But when they disagree, it tends to cast doubt for many people on whether any of them can really claim to be teaching the truth. It seems to me that sola scriptura -- i.e. the concept that Scripture is the only legitimate authority -- developed out of necessity, not desire. By the 16th Cent (actually, the 12th, since one can really see the Waldensians as being Protestants -- they were just unlucky enough to live in a time when politics were against them) it seemed to many people that the interpretations of the Catholic Church had diverged from the intent of the Apostles to the extent that it was no longer possible to claim that Scripture and the Church said the same thing. In this case one has to make a choice. In some sense putting the matter this way has already biased the results. Under the traditional approach, the Church interprets Scripture. No divergence can happen, because they interpret Scripture in such a way that it is consistent with their current theology and practice. So in saying that the decisions of the Church had diverged from Scripture, we are already rejecting the claim of the Church to interpret Scripture authoritatively. It's hard to be entirely sure why the Reformers made this break. Some of it is a matter of looking at Scripture and looking at the current state of the Church, and concluding that there's no way that the one could be consistent with the other. Part of it is a result of the general feeling at the time (shared with people who stayed in the Church) that the leadership of the Church had become seriously corrupt. (However corruption of leaders is not necessarily grounds for abandoning the Church.) Part of it was experience both in their personal lives and in pastoral duties, suggesting that the practices currently being taught had problems. And of course we should not rule out the guidance of the Holy Spirit... Having been burned once by human institutions, the Reformers decided that it was best not to attempt to reestablish the dual authority of tradition and Scripture, e.g. by establishing a new and purified tradition. Rather, they decided to leave the Scripture as the ultimate authority. We can justify this decision by talking about the superiority of God's word over human institutions, but it seems likely that if the two hadn't been perceived as diverging, this concept would never have occured to anyone. It's very clear that this decision is a tradeoff. By having only Scripture as an authority, you have something that you can be sure was inspired by God and which can't slowly wander away from the truth. But when you do this, you give up any hope of having the Church speak with a single voice. The task of interpreting Scripture in new contexts is an important one. When there is no authoritative tradition, this task is left to the individual. That wasn't exactly intent. The Reformers believed that Scripture is in some sense self-interpreting, i.e. that anyone reading it would come to similar conclusions. That was mediated by the help of the Holy Spirit. Particularly for Luther, authority tended to be not Scripture read privately in your room, but Scripture preached under the guidance of the Spirit. Of course the traditions that developed from the Reformation quickly built up their own body of confessions and other traditional material to guide future interpretations. Yet the different remained: these were all secondary authorities. Every confessional document said clearly that you should accept it only to the extent that it did not contradict Scripture. Documents don't interpret themselves, despite the rather optimistic Reformation doctrine about the perspicacity of Scripture. Without a single authorized interpreter, you are guaranteed to have disagreement. "Tradition" is not so much a source of information as an approach to making decisions. It is based on consistency with past decisions, careful control of who gets to make decision (on the basis of being authorized by being in the apostolic succession), and a single person who has the responsibility to recognize what decisions are authoritative (the Pope -- despite all the business about infallibility, it has never been intended that he just goes off into a corner and then invents some strange new idea. His primary role is to act as sort of a moderator, and recognize when the Church has agreed on a doctrine). The nice thing about this approach is that you have a way for the Church (or at least that part of it that follows this approach) to come up with a single decision. By and large people decide between the two approaches based on several things: - whether and how seriously they think the Catholic Church has diverged from Scripture - how important they think a single, unified voice is (or conversely, how much the current fragmentation among Protestants bothers them) I think the advantages of the Catholic approach are obvious. So obvious that if the issue hadn't been forced, I doubt that sola scriptura would ever have developed. However in retrospect I think we can see some advantages to the Protestant approach. First, I think there is a subtle spiritual danger to the Church as a single organization. It allows us to confuse organizational unity with our unity in Christ. Ultimately our confidence should be in God, not in human organizations, no matter how well run. My own view is that the Reformation was in effect a replay of the tower of Babel. Christians had allowed the Church to become too important. As at Babel, God took steps to see that this would never happen again. I look on the fragmentation of the Church as a judgement by God. Not a punishment exactly, but a measure to make sure that in our pride we don't again attempt to construct an organization that competes with the end it is trying to establish. Second, I think that in the current situation people are much more likely to think seriously about their faith. When there is a single set of ideas being taught, it's all too easy just to nod and go back to doing other things. One effect of the Reformation was to make people take theology much more seriously. For these sideeffects to be beneficial depends upon two things. First, it depends upon having things not diverge *too* far. In fact I think people often get an exaggerated view of the differences among denominations. There are great theological differences today, but except for a few issues differences tend to be as great among people within a single denomination (even the Catholic Church) as between denominations. Aside from certain organizations that are fairly easy to identify (e.g. those such as the Mormons or Christian Scientists that have additional revelations, or those such as Unitarians and some Quakers that don't really claim to be orthodox Christians), most churches do hold to the basic Christian faith as expressed for example in the Apostles' or Nicene Creed. Differences are largely in organization, liturgical practice, and issues such as practice of speaking in tongues. Some of these issues can be weighty, but it is easy to lose track of the things that do unite us. Second, for fragmentation to be non-fatal it is necessary for the various denominations to see themselves and each other as part of one Church, and to be willing to work together where doing so would be to the benefit of the Gospel. I believe we do a pretty good job at this in most communities. The biggest obstacles at the moment seem to be: (1) the division over inerrancy of Scripture. In effect this divides Protestants into two camps. Many conservatives see this issue as so critical that they cannot condone cooperation with those on the other side in enterprises where one would otherwise expect there to be cooperation. In general I do not regard the existence of multiple denominations and theological traditions among Protestants as being a bad thing. I think the interaction among these various traditions makes things interesting. However various issues resulting from inerrancy (or the denial of it) have produced extremely divisive battles, and it is hard to believe that we are very close to being able to rejoice in this particular difference. (2) divisions between Protestant and Catholic. These include serious theological differences, and the fact that the Catholics still seem to think they are the whole Church. (This refers to official positions. In practice most Catholics that I know do not have this problem.) You should understand that I probably have a higher toleration for disorder and difference in approach than many people do. As a Vulcan, I take seriously the motto "infinite differences in infinite combination". I actually think it is both interesting and helpful to have many different theological traditions interacting. However I understand the reason that some people find the fragmentation of the Church disquieting.
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (06/26/89)
Well, once again those flaky anglicans have to muck things up.
In anglican theology we trot out the "three legged stool": scripture,
tradition, and reason. Basically, my intent here is to explain why we have
this instead of "sola scriptura".
Our attitude to scripture starts with the observations that (a) when we talk
about scripture, we refer to "canon", and (b) scripture (our scripture)
means many things to many people. The first comment identifies scripture as
being normative; it provides a standard against which theology is tested.
This shouldn't be taken as an argument for inerrancy, for reasons which will
become apparent in the next section.
The problem that immediately arises is that we see that, for a standard, the
bible seems in practice to justify almost anything. In my own experience, it
seems that the more isolated a person is in his interpretation, the more
bizarre the reading. And there is a second problem, more subtle than the
first: scripture isn't motivating. We don't believe in scripture because of
scripture itself; we believe in its authority because the church says,
"Here, read this." In both cases, tradition provides the spark. We
understand tradition in the very broadest sense, of all that has been said
in the church about God, man, and their relationship. And we see it
providing two distinct functions. The first is that it is one of the signs
of the church on earth. Tradition connects the church in history; it helps
the church to remember that it is the church. THe second function is that
of teaching and advice. Tradition not only guides us to the bible, but
guides us within it, and helps to check our personal quirks and prejudices.
This is where I think anglicans are most different from other protestants.
We look at tradition as *also* being normative, and mistrust the lone
christian with his bible.
Lastly we come to reason. Tradition lacks unanimity (to be euphemistic);
hence, one cannot simply say to Tradition: "Here: you tell me." One has to
invoke Reason (and here we need a digression. Anglican "Reason" isn't just
logical, linear thinking. Here it means the entirety of though processes.
Don't blame me; blame Richard Hooker. And for most purposes, we can ignore
the difference, since ordinary rationality plays such a central role as an
enabler for the other modes.) anyway, Reason comes into play here to
convert the clamor of Tradition over Scripture into a single voice, our own
voice.
Anglicans stand behind this view as both normative and descriptive. Without
scripture, we drift away from the central truths. As for reason and
tradition, they are inescapable. Sola Scriptura is wrong not just because
it is a bad idea in practice, but because it doesn't happen in practice. It
is tradition which would give Sola Scriptura authority as an idea in the
first place! It is reason which assents to what Scripture says or what
tradition says (which is where the Roman position goes wrong); people may
reason badly or ignore most tradition, but without either, Scripture goes
silent. And given this, it stands to reason that we should know as much
tradition as we can, and reason as best we can.
C. Wingate
C. Wingate + "The Peace of God, it is no peace,
+ But strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu + Yet brothers, pray for but one thing:
mimsy!mangoe + The marv'lous Peace of God."jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) (06/28/89)
In article <Jun.17.00.50.03.1989.21144@athos.rutgers.edu> alberta!scott@watmath.waterloo.edu (Scott Goodwin) writes:
Scott D. Goodwin wrote:
Could someone summarize the main arguments for and against Tradition and
suggest some references?
Here are a few disorganized considerations.
1. What is the 'sola scriptura' doctrine based on?
Which Fathers of the Church taught this doctrine? Which theologians
in which century espoused this doctrine? What were their criteria
for determining doctrine?
The sola scriptura doctrine cannot stand if it is not traditional.
And it isn't.
2. How do we know what belongs in Scripture and what doesn't?
Historically, there was argument about which books were inspired and
which were not (some were uncontested, others weren't). The Bible
didn't drop from Heaven ready-bound in one volume.
Catholics have an extra seven books in their Old Testament, and some
other bits and pieces here and there. These books have doctrinal
implications (e.g., Machabees on Purgatory). Who has the proper
canon, and how does one decide?
You need something besides scripture to figure out the canon. (I
regard this as a conclusive argument against the 'sola scriptura'
doctrine.)
3. How does one determine what Scripture means?
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church."
"I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not."
How do we decide what these passages mean? Scripture doesn't
interpret itself.
4. Over the past year, it has become clear to me that the Roman Catholic
doctrines regarding:
- Purgatory
- the invocation of Saints
- prayer for the dead
- the veneration of relics
- the canon of Scripture
- Maria semper virgo
have been clearly held by major orthodox Christian teachers since at
least the 4th century AD. In some cases the Fathers held them
unanimously. (The figures involved are not minor, either. I think
St. Augustine held all of the Catholic doctrines listed above.)
How come it took 1100 years (until the Reformation) to figure out
that these things are contradicted by Sacred Scripture?
(The Roman Catholic doctrine is that the Apostles and their
successors did not (and could not) go wrong doctrinally. Through
the influence of the Holy Ghost, the correct beliefs have been
passed down from generation to generation without error.)
There is a lot of argument in t.r.m over verses from scripture, but it
is noticeable that historical justification for the various
interpretations proposed is usually sorely lacking. Most times, even
completely absent.
But of what value is Scripture apart from the traditional interpretation
of same?
------------------
As far as references go...
1. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia (published around 1914; different from
the work called the "New" Catholic Encyclopedia) on "Tradition". It has
a good summary.
(Perhaps also articles on "Revelation", "Scripture", and the "Church",
though I haven't checked.)
2. Catholic apologetic works like the "Radio Replies" always cover the
subject matter. There's lots of this kind of stuff at a very basic
level in just about any Catholic university library or Catholic
bookstore.
3. You might also read the work(s) by St. Vincent of Lerins called the
Commonitories. He wrote after the council of Ephesus (say, 430's AD)
and addressed the question "How do we know what to believe?" There had
been a large doctrinal crisis recently. It is a most interesting work,
of which here's a snatch from a Catholic Patrology collection:
I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that
if I or anyone else wanted... to remain intact and sound in a sound
faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify
that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority
of the divine law; and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Joe Buehlerciriello@lafcol.uucp (Patrick Ciriello II) (06/28/89)
In article <Jun.26.01.43.37.1989.4281@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > Well, once again those flaky anglicans have to muck things up. > > > The problem that immediately arises is that we see that, for a standard, the > bible seems in practice to justify almost anything. In my own experience, it > seems that the more isolated a person is in his interpretation, the more > bizarre the reading. Then you must be approaching it with a bizarre attitude instead of letting the Holy Spirit teach you. If you look at the Bible as ONE BOOK, which it is, then anything that you read in one section has to have support in another, or at least an explanation. If you read two lines from different places, and they contradict, then you must look further into the text to find out exactly what the meaning is. I have been a christian for 6 years, and all the supposed 'contradictions' and 'vague' passages are pretty clear when you look at them in the context of the whole Bible. >And there is a second problem, more subtle than the > first: scripture isn't motivating. We don't believe in scripture because of > scripture itself; we believe in its authority because the church says, > "Here, read this." In both cases, tradition provides the spark. Not for me ... I was not interested in christianity BECAUSE of all the 'traditions' and 'dogmas' and church-related beuracracy and B.S.!!! I used to go to church and look around at all the robots reciting everything the pompous dudes up front told them to say ... BIG DEAL! I didn't get interested in God until I decided ( well, actually, he decided ) to read the Bible for myself ... then I started to see ALOT of stuff that, not only was it a waste of time (the church I was in), but alot f what they were saying was WRONG ... plain and simple. Sorry, but if the Bible doesn't say it, then it ain't so. Period. > We understand tradition in the very broadest sense, of all that has been said > in the church about God, man, and their relationship. And we see it > providing two distinct functions. The first is that it is one of the signs > of the church on earth. Tradition connects the church in history; it helps > the church to remember that it is the church. THe second function is that > of teaching and advice. Tradition not only guides us to the bible, but > guides us within it, and helps to check our personal quirks and prejudices. > This is where I think anglicans are most different from other protestants. > We look at tradition as *also* being normative, and mistrust the lone > christian with his bible. In other words, the heck with the fact that God said He would send the Holy Sprit ... you have all the answers, so let's not bother listening to the Word of God ... you sound just like a Pharasee ... 'OUR traditions is this, and OUR tradition is that' ... I suppose we should all go out and buy weapons and storm Jerusalem again ... I mean, that IS part of the church's tradition, isn't it? > > Lastly we come to reason. Tradition lacks unanimity (to be euphemistic); > hence, one cannot simply say to Tradition: "Here: you tell me." One has to > invoke Reason (and here we need a digression. Anglican "Reason" isn't just > logical, linear thinking. Here it means the entirety of though processes. > Don't blame me; blame Richard Hooker. And for most purposes, we can ignore > the difference, since ordinary rationality plays such a central role as an > enabler for the other modes.) anyway, Reason comes into play here to > convert the clamor of Tradition over Scripture into a single voice, our own > voice. > REASON??????? You gotta be kidding? You really think us poor, pathetic, SINFUL, IMPERFECT, human beings could use our LIMITED, NARROW SCOPE reasoning to figure out what God is really saying ? If the Spirit does not reveal something to you, then forget it ... you are not going to figure it out on your own, and no 'council' is going to do it either. You just have to wait until God decides to enlighten you (and you should also be prepared to accept that the time of enlightenment on a particular subject may never come ... ) > Anglicans stand behind this view as both normative and descriptive. Without > scripture, we drift away from the central truths. As for reason and > tradition, they are inescapable. Sola Scriptura is wrong not just because > it is a bad idea in practice, but because it doesn't happen in practice. Sorry .. I have to disagree on a personal, first hand basis. > It is tradition which would give Sola Scriptura authority as an idea in the > first place! It is reason which assents to what Scripture says or what > tradition says (which is where the Roman position goes wrong); people may > reason badly or ignore most tradition, but without either, Scripture goes > silent. And given this, it stands to reason that we should know as much > tradition as we can, and reason as best we can. > It is God who gives authority to His own word ... not the church. God gives the church (the ones that follow His word and not their own) the authority to preach His Word .. not doubt it. We do not assent to what scripture says unless we are first prepared by God to do so, which has nothing at all to do with reason. Scripture does not go silent in the absence of tradition and reason ... it becomes an unsoiled pillar of faith free from the dirt and cracks of human reason and tradition. Pat Ciriello II (a.k.a White Dragon) ciriello!lafcol ciriello@lafayett
kolassa@udny.uchicago.edu (Kolassa) (07/01/89)
In article <Jun.28.01.06.15.1989.22415@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) writes: > > Catholics have an extra seven books in their Old Testament, and some > other bits and pieces here and there. Orthodox Christians also include these books. [along with others. The Orthodox Scriptures are not identical to the Catholic ones. --clh]