Disputationes: Tradition
Tradition
The Catholic Church has invented several doctrines, and has added the "traditions of men" to the Word of God.
Let's cut out the ipse dixit's (lit. "he said it," or paraphrastically, "I said it, so it's true") - I could just as effortlessly make the same charge of the Baptist denomination. Let's start with your definition of "the Word of God" - what do you mean by that?
The Bible.
I would contest that statement. The Scriptures themselves do not limit the "Word of God" to mean the written word alone.
But the Bible is the only divinely-inspired source of infallible teaching.
Two-minute penalty for using another ipse dixit. Why don't you offer some Scriptural support for that statement?
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
You know, I agree with that passage 100%! All of Scripture - every last word of it - is inspired by God, and it most certainly is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. But you know, there's one very important word missing from that passage: the word "alone."
What do you mean?
I mean you're reading more into that verse than is there in the text; all the text says is that a) Scripture is inspired by God, b) it is "profitable" for reproof, etc. The text does not say "Scripture alone is inspired by God, and it alone is to be used as a basis for reproof, correction, etc."
No, look at the end of the verse: "that the man of God may be complete." If the Bible can make a man "complete," then obviously you don't need any other source.
That's incorrect. You've confused the "goal" with the "instruments" that get you to that goal. The goal here is "that the man of God may be complete," and in particular, "equipped for every good work." In getting the man to that goal, St. Paul says the Scriptures are "profitable." Again, not "solely sufficient," not "exclusive," not "alone."
Look at the verse just prior. Paul says that the Bible is "able to instruct you for salvation." He says nothing about any pope, bishops, oral traditions, and so on.
There's another interesting word, eh? "Able." My car is "able" to get me to work in the morning - if I put gas in it and keep the oil changed; my weekly paycheck is "able" to
support me and my family - if I budget well, spend carefully, and balance my ledger. Yes, the Scriptures are "able" to instruct us for salvation - if they are interpreted correctly and taught to us truthfully. Remember the Ethiopian Eunuch to whom St. Philip was sent to evangelize? He was reading the Scriptures, and St. Philip said "do you understand what you are reading?" The Ethiopian responded, "how can I, unless someone instructs me?" (Acts 8:29-31)
That's a different situation. The Ethiopian was only reading the Old Testament (see vs. 28), and the Gospel wasn't well-known yet.
That's rather an arbitrary argument, isn't it? What "scriptures" do you think St. Paul was talking about when he said (in the passage we were just discussing) that "the scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation?" The New Testament hadn't been written yet, so apparently St. Paul - if your interpretation is to be held - was teaching Sola Old Testament - the sole sufficiency of the Old Testament to instruct us in salvation. I don't think either of us will accept that proposition.
What you mean to say by your argument, then, is that Sola Scriptura wasn't being practiced by either the Ethiopian or St. Philip - you implicitly admit that there was a period of time when Sola Scriptura was not being practiced by the apostles.
Yes, I would admit that. There was obviously a period of inscripturation, while the New Testament was being written and oral revelation was still being given, during which no one could practice SS.
Well, now wait a minute. When did this non-SS period of inscripturation end?
With the death of the last apostle.
So, in other words, no one could practice SS until St. John died sometime around 90 AD. That's very interesting, because we were just arguing about 2 Tim. 3:16-17 - do you know when that epistle was written?
Sometime before 66-67 AD.
Right, because that's when St. Paul was martyred. Let's be generous and say as late as 70 AD; that leaves at least 20 years from the time St. Paul wrote 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and the time St. John died, thus ending the period of inscripturation.
What's your point?
My point is that - as you said - no one could even practice SS until at least 90 AD; but yet you're saying St. Paul was teaching it 20 years before that. You've only got a few options here:
1) St. Paul was teaching Sola SCriptura in 70 AD, but his audience was unable to practice it for another 20 years - certainly a novelty in all of the Scriptural commandments
2) St. Paul was not teaching SS in 70 AD, but the words that he wrote suddenly changed their meaning in 90 AD, so that after 20 years they meant "SS is true," even though they didn't mean that 20 years prior
3) St. Paul was not teaching SS in 70 AD, the text does not change its meaning with the passage of time, and thus, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 still does not teach SS today
I don't like any of those options.
Changing your beliefs is an act of mental martyrdom - nobody "likes" going through that. But let's take this a bit further: 2 Tim. 3:16-17 wasn't the only NT passage to be written prior to 90 AD (the end of the inscripturation period). All of the New Testament was written prior to 90 AD. So basically you're going to have to admit that a) all the passages in the New Testament commanded Christians to practice something they could not practice for several more decades, b) all of the passages in the New Testament meant one thing in 50-70 AD, but changed their meaning with the passage of time into 90 AD, or c) no passage in the New Testament teaches SS, because no passage of Scripture changes its meaning with the passage of time.
Alright, it looks as though I'll have to admit that the New Testament doesn't teach SS. That's the least painful of the three choices. But that doesn't mean SS isn't true.
How do you reason that? If it's not taught in Scripture, then it's an invented "tradition of men," and you should reject it!
It is taught in Scripture, but only implicitly - by default, if you will.
Go on ...
2 Tim. 3:16-17 teaches that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. We agree on that, right?
Yes, absolutely.
But the Bible does not point us to any other inspired or infallible source of teaching, so by default, then, we are left with Scripture Alone as our sole source of infallible teaching.
I see two problems with that line of reasoning. 1) The Bible does point us to another infallible source of teaching, and it insists that we obey it, and 2) you're arguing from your conclusion before you've proven the conclusion.
Explain that last point.
You've already presumed that the Bible is inspired, and based on that presumption, you let the Bible serve as its own witness to its own inspiration. I could just as easily (and legitimately) say that the Church Herself teaches that She is infallible, therefore we have identified two infallible sources.
Well, just because the Church says it's infallible doesn't mean it's true! I'm not going to take the Church's word for it.
That's precisely my point. You won't let the Church witness to Her own infallibility, you won't take Her "word for it"; but you expect me to do precisely that with the Bible. You expect me to accept the Bible's infallibility just because the Bible says it's infallible.
But you already agreed with me that the Bible is infallible.
That's completely beside the point. The point is that you're being inconsistent: you'll accept the self-testimony of Infallible Claimant #1, but you will not accept the self-testimony of Infallible Claimant #2. That's completely arbitrary. Not much I can do about that, I just wanted to point out that the playing field isn't level here. You have no more solid basis for accepting the infallibility of Scripture than you have for not accepting the infallibility of the Church - it's an arbitrary decision on your part. All the same, since we do both accept Scripture as infallible, I'll argue from Scripture.
Yes, you said the Bible points us to another infallible source. Prove it.
How's your Greek?
Rusty.
The word for "inspired" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is Theopneustos - literally, "God-breathed."
Ok.
Well, so is the apostolic college.
What?
Remember, Pneo has a triple-meaning. It means "breath," it means "wind," and it means "Spirit." Consider this passage from St. John's Gospel, where all three words are used:
If you see that passage in Greek, you can see that the same root word is used for all three English words:
We have the same thing in English, really. "Inspired" comes from the Latin, in spirare, "to breath into." But again, the word spirare can mean "to breath," but spiritus means "Spirit." So the Scriptures are God-breathed, meaning that God breathed (pneuma, spirare) His own Spirit (pneuma, spiritus)into the Sacred Writers as they wrote.
Ok, that's all very interesting. But where does Scripture show us another God-breathed source of teaching?
In the very same Gospel of St. John:
God quite literally breathed His Holy Spirit into His apostles. For what purpose? For infallibility: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13) If "infallible" means "without error," then certain "all the truth" is synonymous with "infallible."
I'm not so sure. The apostles were infallible when they wrote Scripture, but ... infallible all the time?
As teachers and guardians of the Deposit of Faith, absolutely. Their infallibility was not limited to their writings alone. So intent was Our Lord upon giving them His inspiration, His God-breathed-ness, that He could say to them, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
You see, this all stems from the Divine Pattern, and the unity that Jesus gave to His apostles. Read St. John's Gospel, and a certain pattern appears: what the Father does, the Son mimics, and the Son does nothing apart from what He sees the Father doing. The Son is not an improviser - He sees, He repeats:
Likewise, the Spirit is not an improviser, but only mimics what He observes in the Son:
Finally, the apostles themselves are not improvisers, but mimics. Jesus prays:
This phrase is repeated, you know, the idea of "just as the Father has sent me, so likewise I am sending you." The Son sends out the apostles because He is mimicking what He saw the Father do: He sent the Son. So there is this established pattern of the subordinate merely mimicking the superior: The Son does what He sees the Father doing; the Spirit only speaks what He hears the Son saying; the apostles are delegates of the Son who speak, not on their own authority, but with His authority (he who hears you is really hearing me).
Ok. How does infallibility fit into that picture?
Well, I wasn't finished yet. I also said this stems from the unity of the Father and the Son, and the Son with the Apostles.
You see, the Apostles enjoyed complete and total unity with Our Lord, a unity that was identical to the union of Father and Son. That is why He could say, "he who hears you, hears me," and so on. They now speak with the same voice - and His voice is infallible. They are not infallible in themselves, but because they speak with His voice, the speak infallibly.
Your logic seems sound, but I'm having a hard time accepting that the apostles were infallible even in their oral teaching.
If you accept written Scripture as infallible, then you have to accept that the Apostles taught infallibly in their oral teaching as well. At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, when the Church officially declared that circumcision was no longer necessary to be initiated into the Covenant, St. James said that this decision "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." (Acts 15:28) Rather a presumptuous statement, wouldn't you agree? He certainly appears to be saying that they speak with the very voice of the Holy Spirit - which is exactly what Jesus promised them.
Likewise, St. Paul wrote:
You see? St. Paul explicitly equates their oral preaching with "the word of God."
I'm going to have to think more about that. But for now, let's just say I accept your reasoning here, and admit that the apostles were infallible both when they wrote and when they taught orally. So what? The apostles are dead now.
True.
But where in Scripture (or Tradition, for that matter) do you ever find an indication that this Divine Pattern of sending and mimicking was scheduled to change? If Jesus only does what He sees the Father doing, and if the Apostles only do what they see the Son doing, what would make you think that the next generation after the Apostles would suddenly decide to improvise? If the Apostles didn't feel free to deviate from the Divine Pattern, certainly their inferiors would not feel any more liberated to do so.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying - but that doesn't answer my question. What evidence do you have that the second generation of pastors were, like the Apostles, infallible?
Let me get you to step back for a moment and take another look - try to get a slightly different perspective on the question. I feel like you're almost treating infallibility as though it were some kind of magic trick, you know? Something the Apostles could pull out at parties, or whatever. In this case, the source of Truth is God; the protector or guardian of that Truth is the Church, or the Apostolic College.
What's the difference between infallibility and guardianship? You're still claiming the Church is infallible.
But not in the way you're probably thinking. Remember what Jesus said about the Spirit? He will not speak on His own, but only what He hears me saying. The Spirit's function is not to reveal new truths to the Church in every age, but merely to remind them of the Truth already transmitted. So when I say the Apostles and their successors are "infallible," I mean that they perfectly protect the Truth which has already been revealed.
Think of it this way: infallibility - to be 100% truth and without even the slightest taint of error - is an attribute of the teaching, of the message; the teacher is only infallible to the extent that he transmits the message, part-for-part, without deviation or invention. So the question here is whether or not the Church's teachers are given the gift of being able to preserve and pass on the infallible teaching, without adding to it or subtracting from it.
I mean, for that matter, we're both "infallible" in a sense. If I say, "Jesus is God," I have just spoken infallibly. But when you look at that way, maybe it's easier for you to see how infallibility is not an attribute of mine, but of the teaching which I merely repeated.
Let me try to sort this out, then. You're saying the the Apostles, their successors, their successors' successors, etc., are infallible in the sense that they perfectly transmit the original teaching of Jesus, without any deviation?
That's correct.
That's impossible. Fallible men are always prone to embellish, fudge the facts, elaborate the details, and corrupt the truth.
You're right - it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. Humans are always prone to error, but to say that they can err is not the same as saying that they will err. On a human level, yes, the Church could err, but we have God's promise that She will not err - so in that sense, it's impossible for Her to err, or else God is a liar.
I'm waiting, then - show me from Scripture that the Apostles and their successors were given the gift of infallibility.
Fine, as long as we understand that "infallibility" means that God grants them the gift of protecting the Truth from error. It's not so much a positive function as it is a negative function: it's not adding new revelation to the Faith, it's preventing error from creeping in.
St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy:
Ss. Paul and Timothy had been given a special gift or "charism" by the Holy Spirit, namely, they had been "entrusted" with the Truth, and enabled to "guard" that which was entrusted to them. Actually, it would appear that St. Timothy was given this charism specifically by St. Paul, through a special laying-on-of-hands ceremony when St. Paul appointed St. Timothy to be a bishop in Ephesus.
Also, this seems to be a mark of the Church as a whole. St. Paul wrote:
You've got to deal with the fact that it is the Church which Scripture itself points to as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Now wait a minute. The Church is the "pillar" of the Truth, not the source of Truth. A pillar simply holds up something else. So this doesn't rule out Scripture as being the sole source of the Truth.
No, we'll deal with the "source" question later. For right now, just recognize the implications of what you just admitted. A pillar holds something up. What is the pillar holding up, in this case? The text says "the truth."
Now if you're suggesting to me that the Church can (and has) taught error, or that there is no infallible Church that only teaches Truth all the time, then guess what? This text of Scripture is a lie.
What is the polar opposite of Truth?
Error.
Exactly, so if this "pillar" whose function is to hold up the Truth also holds up errors - well, these two things cancel each other out. By definition "Truth" excludes error, just as "white" excludes any shade of gray or black. If the Church, the pillar of Truth, can't hold up the Truth then this is an extremely weak pillar indeed.
But the "truth" which it holds up is Scripture, the only source of Truth.
So you're admitting that the Church infallibly interprets Scripture now?
Hey ... now ...
Well, that's the implication there. Again, if the Church holds up errors with regard to Scripture and its interpretation, then the Church is not a pillar of Truth at all, and St. Paul was mistaken (and say good-bye to your infallible Scripture as well). I'm willing to say that "the Truth" which the Church holds up certainly includes Scripture; I'm just not willing to say that Scripture alone is included in this phrase "the truth."
Right, of course, you include all sort of man-made traditions.
Traditions, yes. Man-made? I don't think so. Remember, you already admitted that sola scriptura isn't taught in Scripture, so let's not start throwing the "man-made tradition" grenade around just yet.
What I have to get you to see is that you're actually violating Scripture by insisting that God's Word only comes to us in the written medium.
I've already asked you, show me another inspired body of teaching and I'll follow it.
And I've already showed you that the Apostles themselves were "God-breathed," that their successors were given the charism of guarding the Truth, and that the Church can then rightly be called the "pillar of Truth."
But beyond that - and you knew this verse was coming - the Scriptures teach:
Please notice (and do not side-step) the fact that St. Paul explicitly names two modes of transmitting the Faith: "by word of mouth" and "by letter." Oral and written. Scripture and Tradition.
Ok, then you should be able to show me an official list of what these "traditions" are that I'm supposed to follow.
Oh brother, here we go ...
Well, if you want me to follow St. Paul's advice here, then show me one of these so-called traditions that is not contained in Scripture, but is part of the Apostolic Teaching.
I've been down this road before, and it's a dead-end - you'll see why in a minute. Ooooo-kay, you want an example of an Apostolic Tradition not found in Scripture? How about the understanding of Mary as a partner with Our Lord in the Redemption?
There's a tradition for you. Are you going to start believing it?
Sorry, but Irenaeus is appealing to Scripture here. He's contrasting Mary with Eve - this is not a valid example of an extra-biblical tradition.
This is why this is a dead-end argument. No Catholic worth his salt would try to say that we believe certain dogmas based purely on oral tradition, with absolutely zero support from Scripture. Scripture and Tradition flow from the same Divine Source - what is implicit in one is explicit in the other.
Of course, St. Irenaeus appeals to Scriptural types - but the point is, you believe his teaching is un-Scriptural, so it's rather disingenuous of you to say that this is not an example of a non-Scriptural tradition.
What you fail to appreciate here is that St. Irenaeus' interpretation of Scripture is part of that Tradition. You want a completely extra-biblical tradition? How about:
1) The Tradition of interpreting Mary as the New Eve
2) The Tradition of interpreting Scripture in support of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
3) The Tradition of interpreting Scripture in support of the Papacy
And so on and so on and so on.
But back to my point: you profess to be willing to submit to these Traditions, but what have you just done? You've just asked me to produce a written list of oral Traditions!
How is that in keeping with St. Paul's command to believe the teachings regardless of what form they come in, whether written or oral?
Of course I'm going to ask for a written list - how else am I supposed to verify the existence of these Traditions?
You ask the Church, the living voice of the Apostles, the pillar of Truth. There is really no excuse for your attitude here, which is precisely the opposite of what St. Paul commands. He says "hold to the teachings whether by word of mouth or letter," but you turn around and say, "I will hold to the teachings, by word of mouth only if also found in the letters." You have already rejected out of hand, before you even come to the table, one of the mediums which St. Paul commends to you.
In other words, your deep suspicion of anything oral, of anything not found written in Scripture, is completely the polar opposite of what St. Paul said: accept the teachings regardless of whether it comes orally or written down.
Well, like I said, you show me an official list of these traditions and then we'll talk.
There you go asking for written evidence again. This is really, really disingenuous. You act as though you can't know what this "list of traditions" is unless you see an inspired list. I have two responses to this:
1) You know darn well what this "list of traditions" is. Sit down with a piece of paper and write down all of the "man-made traditions" of the Catholic Church which you reject as unbiblical - there's your silly "list of traditions." See? Don't pretend like you don't know what they are; somehow you've managed to find out about them and commit them to memory, even though you're not even in the Church.
2) If you want to go down this road of "I can't know it unless I have an inspired list," then let's go there, but I'm going to turn the tables: show me your inspired list of which books belong in the Bible.
Somehow I knew you'd eventually bring up the Canon of Scripture argument.
Well, it's something you're going to have to deal with. You want to know how I can know the dogmas of the Church and the Traditions of the Apostles without an infallibly-defined list - I will say I learned it the same way you did: by word of mouth (fancy that!). I learned it further by watching the Church and observing how She behaves Herself in Her liturgy, in Her devotions, in Her prayers, in Her councils, and so on. Somehow both you and I ended up with a knowledge of what those teachings are, because they are the very things teachings that separate us: those dogmas which I believe, which you reject.
Now, I say back to you, how do you know which books belong in the Bible if you don't have a God-breathed, inspired list of those books?
The same way the Jews knew what their Old Testament Canon was without having to have an infallible Church council tell them.
And this is what we call "begging the question." You assume the Jews had a fixed Canon of Scripture, because you must somehow presume that they practiced a form of sola scriptura.
They most certainly did have a Canon. How else could Jesus hold them to the standard of Scripture, saying things like "search the Scriptures," or "have you not read the Scriptures," and so on?
I'm not denying that they had a certain core collection of writings that they accepted as authoritative - I am denying that they had a fixed Canon that was agreed upon by everyone. The Sadducees, for example, only held the first five books (Moses' books) as inspired by God.
But let's be honest: the New Testament writers quoted from an awful lot of literature, some of it pagan, some of it inspired, some of it what you would call "apocryphal." St. Paul quotes from Wisdom, St. Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch, and St. James quotes from Sirach. So apparently "quoted by a New Testament writer" is no kind of criterion by which to measure inspiration.
You know as well as I do that the Canon of Scripture is something external to Scripture - it is a "function" of Scripture, not part of the Divine Revelation.
This sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors; you haven't dealt with the question of how you determine which books are inspired and which ones aren't.
That's just the point: I don't determine that. God does. The criterion is simple - whatever is God-breathed is Canonical; whatever is not God-breathed is not Canonical. The Church does not give Scripture its authority, it merely stands back and recognizes that authority.
You still haven't answered the question. Whatever is God-breathed is Canonical, whatever isn't is not Canonical? Great! Now you've just moved the question back a step: which books are God-breathed?!
I agree with you: human authority does not "authenticate" or "determine" which books are inspired, in the sense that the Church can say, "Ok, Jude is inspired," and then - zap! - now that book is inspired. The Epistle of St. Jude was inspired the moment it was written; but who authoritatively recognizes that fact?
The Canon was something agreed upon by the universal church from the time of the Apostolic age. There was no question of whether Matthew's Gospel was inspired, or whether John's Gospel was inspired.
That doesn't help you, though. There are three problems here:
1) The early Church - so you claim - had agreed as to which books were inspired, and so you accept those books as inspired; but the early Church also agree about certain doctrines, such as the Eucharist, Infant Baptism, the Primacy of Peter, etc., and you refuse to accept those things.
2) The early Church also generally accepted the books of the Old Testament which you called "apocryphal," and had them removed from your Bible.
3) The early Church was not nearly as unified on the question of the New Testament books as you seem to imagine; in fact, they were more in agreement about the "apocryphal" books than they were on the New Testament.
That's nonsense. The Gospels were always accepted in the Church.
I'm not talking about the Gospels. The Gospels only make up four of the 27 books which you accept. The early Church remained uncertain of several of those books, especially 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation, Jude, and Hebrews. On the flip side, we have historical witness that the churches in the area of Corinth (the Corinthians) were reading an epistle from Pope St. Clement of Rome as though it were Scripture (i.e., they regularly read from it alongside the other liturgical readings from Scripture); the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were both considered canonical by certain churches in the early days.
Again, there was much more unanimity on the so-called "apocryphal" books - but you reject those out of hand!
Nonsense! When Luther removed those books from the Canon, he was acting on the precedent set by the council of Jamnia as early as 90 AD.
The council of Jamnia was a Jewish council held by anti-Christian Jews some 60 years into the Church's existence. They didn't like the fact that the Christians were using these books to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, and since these books were not as ancient as the others, the Jews had them removed.
But I thought we were looking to follow the example of the early Church here, not the early Synagogue?
Still, even in the early Church, these apocryphal books were rejected from the start.
Again, only someone who didn't know Church history could say that. Just read the Apostolic Fathers alone - St. Clement, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Barnabas, etc. What books do they quote from? Much like the New Testament, they quote from well-known OT texts, a few outright apocryphal works, and several of the so-called "apocryphal" works which Catholics have always accepted.
That's just not true.
Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you - you'll have to dig into those writings and find out for yourself, but I promise you that what I've just said is completely verifiable. Certainly by the 4th and 5th century, the Canonical lists were identical to the ones enumerated by the Council of Trent.
A quote from St. Francis de Sales is in order here:
I still maintain that Luther was acting on ancient precedent in removing the seven books which the Catholic Church had added.
I can't stop you from believing that - but it's just not true. Do your historical homework: check the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage, Pope Gelasius' decree de libris canonicis, and Innocent I's Epistle to Exuperius. For that matter, observe the fact that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), which dates back to before Christ's birth, contained those seven books. It's a fact of history that the Apostles used this Septuagint! St. Paul especially, when he quotes from the Psalms, almost always quotes the Septuagint Greek version instead of the Hebrew version. And there are just certain sections of the New Testament that - it cannot be denied - quote or allude to passages in the seven books.
Give me a few examples.
St. Paul in Romans 1:18-29 borrows almost word-for-word from Wisdom 13:1-18; St. James' Epistle 3:1-12 sounds an awful lot like Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 5:11-6:1; Matthew 27:42-43 is, again, almost word-for-word a replica of Wisdom 2:12-20; St. Paul again in 1 Cor. 15:29ff uses the same argument and language that is used in 2 Macc. 12:43-44); St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:35 seems to refer to the story of the mother who loses seven sons to martyrdom in 2 Macc. 7.
I'll take a look at those. We seem to have gotten rather off the topic.
Yes, I agree. I'll just wrap it up by summarizing: Scripture itself never claims a "sola" status for itself, but it does point to a Church which is the "pillar of truth"; it does teach us to hold fast to all the traditions, without any sort of prejudice to whether those traditions are written or oral; and it does show us that Jesus intended to commit His own authority to the Apostolic College, to allow them to speak with His own voice; there is every indication that a Divine Pattern was begun - the pattern of sending the next generation out with your own power and authority, while mimicking the previous generation and improvising nothing - and that this pattern was not intended to be broken; and the evidence is strongly in favor of a Divinely-protected Church which is the authorized guardian of the Faith.
But what good is your infallible Church? Don't you have to fallibly interpret whatever the Church teaches? Didn't you have to engage in fallible private interpretation to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true Church?
Epistemology is fun, isn't it? Yes, I have to fallibly interpret whatever the Church teaches me. And yes, I had to fallibly reason my way through the Scriptures and Church History in order to arrive at the fallible decision that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
As to the first question: you seem to suggest that the Church serves no purpose, because no matter what She teaches, I have to fallibly interpret it. But what you forget is that the Church has the advantage over "Scripture Alone" precisely because the Church can continue to speak, continue to clarify, correct and judge where necessary. If I fallibly and erroneously interpret something the Church has taught, She has only to issue a clarification in the future. If that clarification isn't clear enough, there can be yet another clarification.
In any case, the advantage here is that we follow the Biblical pattern: there is an authoritative Voice to whom we defer when theological disputes arise; and rarely does the Church exercise Her charism to root out error unless a dispute has arisen.
As to the second question: I know where you're going with this. You will say that my future certainty in the infallible Church is only as certain as my first decision - the decision to listen to the Church. And, since that first decision was fallible, well, then I can have no real certainty about any future "infallible" Church teaching.
Now we've gotten into the issue of faith versus reason, and where certitude fits into the discussion. Suffice it to say that the Catholic Faith is still, after all these years, founded upon just that: faith. The evidence and Reason strongly point us towards the Church, but ultimately we leave evidence and Reason at the doorstep of Faith, and cross over without them.
You, in fact, have the same dilemma: you rest upon your infallible Scriptures, but you have fallibly reasoned your way to the conclusion that Scripture is infallible in the first place. Perhaps they are fallible after all, and thus your future choices are just as wrong as your first choice.
For that matter, your choice to believe in this person named "Jesus" was a fallible choice, and thus, the entirety of your religion rests on sand for certitude. And yet, you are certain of your choices, are you not?
Well alright, then, let's bring the question to a realistic plane - it's not as though I'm claiming Catholicism is based 100% on empirical evidence and scientific fact, while Protestantism is based on a wish and a prayer. Both are based on faith, ultimately; and both have a certain number of facts to recommend them. But I do claim that the majority of the facts are clearly on the side of Catholicism; history points to the Catholic Church, Scripture points to the Catholic Church, the Church Fathers point to the Catholic Church, and so on.
Alright, let me think some of this stuff through.
Fair enough - we'll talk again. I want to raise the issue of authority and Apostolic Succession with you.
Sounds good.
The Catholic Church has invented several doctrines, and has added the "traditions of men" to the Word of God.
Let's cut out the ipse dixit's (lit. "he said it," or paraphrastically, "I said it, so it's true") - I could just as effortlessly make the same charge of the Baptist denomination. Let's start with your definition of "the Word of God" - what do you mean by that?
The Bible.
I would contest that statement. The Scriptures themselves do not limit the "Word of God" to mean the written word alone.
But the Bible is the only divinely-inspired source of infallible teaching.
Two-minute penalty for using another ipse dixit. Why don't you offer some Scriptural support for that statement?
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
You know, I agree with that passage 100%! All of Scripture - every last word of it - is inspired by God, and it most certainly is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. But you know, there's one very important word missing from that passage: the word "alone."
What do you mean?
I mean you're reading more into that verse than is there in the text; all the text says is that a) Scripture is inspired by God, b) it is "profitable" for reproof, etc. The text does not say "Scripture alone is inspired by God, and it alone is to be used as a basis for reproof, correction, etc."
No, look at the end of the verse: "that the man of God may be complete." If the Bible can make a man "complete," then obviously you don't need any other source.
That's incorrect. You've confused the "goal" with the "instruments" that get you to that goal. The goal here is "that the man of God may be complete," and in particular, "equipped for every good work." In getting the man to that goal, St. Paul says the Scriptures are "profitable." Again, not "solely sufficient," not "exclusive," not "alone."
Look at the verse just prior. Paul says that the Bible is "able to instruct you for salvation." He says nothing about any pope, bishops, oral traditions, and so on.
There's another interesting word, eh? "Able." My car is "able" to get me to work in the morning - if I put gas in it and keep the oil changed; my weekly paycheck is "able" to
support me and my family - if I budget well, spend carefully, and balance my ledger. Yes, the Scriptures are "able" to instruct us for salvation - if they are interpreted correctly and taught to us truthfully. Remember the Ethiopian Eunuch to whom St. Philip was sent to evangelize? He was reading the Scriptures, and St. Philip said "do you understand what you are reading?" The Ethiopian responded, "how can I, unless someone instructs me?" (Acts 8:29-31)
That's a different situation. The Ethiopian was only reading the Old Testament (see vs. 28), and the Gospel wasn't well-known yet.
That's rather an arbitrary argument, isn't it? What "scriptures" do you think St. Paul was talking about when he said (in the passage we were just discussing) that "the scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation?" The New Testament hadn't been written yet, so apparently St. Paul - if your interpretation is to be held - was teaching Sola Old Testament - the sole sufficiency of the Old Testament to instruct us in salvation. I don't think either of us will accept that proposition.
What you mean to say by your argument, then, is that Sola Scriptura wasn't being practiced by either the Ethiopian or St. Philip - you implicitly admit that there was a period of time when Sola Scriptura was not being practiced by the apostles.
Yes, I would admit that. There was obviously a period of inscripturation, while the New Testament was being written and oral revelation was still being given, during which no one could practice SS.
Well, now wait a minute. When did this non-SS period of inscripturation end?
With the death of the last apostle.
So, in other words, no one could practice SS until St. John died sometime around 90 AD. That's very interesting, because we were just arguing about 2 Tim. 3:16-17 - do you know when that epistle was written?
Sometime before 66-67 AD.
Right, because that's when St. Paul was martyred. Let's be generous and say as late as 70 AD; that leaves at least 20 years from the time St. Paul wrote 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and the time St. John died, thus ending the period of inscripturation.
What's your point?
My point is that - as you said - no one could even practice SS until at least 90 AD; but yet you're saying St. Paul was teaching it 20 years before that. You've only got a few options here:
1) St. Paul was teaching Sola SCriptura in 70 AD, but his audience was unable to practice it for another 20 years - certainly a novelty in all of the Scriptural commandments
2) St. Paul was not teaching SS in 70 AD, but the words that he wrote suddenly changed their meaning in 90 AD, so that after 20 years they meant "SS is true," even though they didn't mean that 20 years prior
3) St. Paul was not teaching SS in 70 AD, the text does not change its meaning with the passage of time, and thus, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 still does not teach SS today
I don't like any of those options.
Changing your beliefs is an act of mental martyrdom - nobody "likes" going through that. But let's take this a bit further: 2 Tim. 3:16-17 wasn't the only NT passage to be written prior to 90 AD (the end of the inscripturation period). All of the New Testament was written prior to 90 AD. So basically you're going to have to admit that a) all the passages in the New Testament commanded Christians to practice something they could not practice for several more decades, b) all of the passages in the New Testament meant one thing in 50-70 AD, but changed their meaning with the passage of time into 90 AD, or c) no passage in the New Testament teaches SS, because no passage of Scripture changes its meaning with the passage of time.
Alright, it looks as though I'll have to admit that the New Testament doesn't teach SS. That's the least painful of the three choices. But that doesn't mean SS isn't true.
How do you reason that? If it's not taught in Scripture, then it's an invented "tradition of men," and you should reject it!
It is taught in Scripture, but only implicitly - by default, if you will.
Go on ...
2 Tim. 3:16-17 teaches that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. We agree on that, right?
Yes, absolutely.
But the Bible does not point us to any other inspired or infallible source of teaching, so by default, then, we are left with Scripture Alone as our sole source of infallible teaching.
I see two problems with that line of reasoning. 1) The Bible does point us to another infallible source of teaching, and it insists that we obey it, and 2) you're arguing from your conclusion before you've proven the conclusion.
Explain that last point.
You've already presumed that the Bible is inspired, and based on that presumption, you let the Bible serve as its own witness to its own inspiration. I could just as easily (and legitimately) say that the Church Herself teaches that She is infallible, therefore we have identified two infallible sources.
Well, just because the Church says it's infallible doesn't mean it's true! I'm not going to take the Church's word for it.
That's precisely my point. You won't let the Church witness to Her own infallibility, you won't take Her "word for it"; but you expect me to do precisely that with the Bible. You expect me to accept the Bible's infallibility just because the Bible says it's infallible.
But you already agreed with me that the Bible is infallible.
That's completely beside the point. The point is that you're being inconsistent: you'll accept the self-testimony of Infallible Claimant #1, but you will not accept the self-testimony of Infallible Claimant #2. That's completely arbitrary. Not much I can do about that, I just wanted to point out that the playing field isn't level here. You have no more solid basis for accepting the infallibility of Scripture than you have for not accepting the infallibility of the Church - it's an arbitrary decision on your part. All the same, since we do both accept Scripture as infallible, I'll argue from Scripture.
Yes, you said the Bible points us to another infallible source. Prove it.
How's your Greek?
Rusty.
The word for "inspired" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is Theopneustos - literally, "God-breathed."
Ok.
Well, so is the apostolic college.
What?
Remember, Pneo has a triple-meaning. It means "breath," it means "wind," and it means "Spirit." Consider this passage from St. John's Gospel, where all three words are used:
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
If you see that passage in Greek, you can see that the same root word is used for all three English words:
The wind [pneuma] blows [pnei] where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit [pneumatos]. (John 3:8)
We have the same thing in English, really. "Inspired" comes from the Latin, in spirare, "to breath into." But again, the word spirare can mean "to breath," but spiritus means "Spirit." So the Scriptures are God-breathed, meaning that God breathed (pneuma, spirare) His own Spirit (pneuma, spiritus)into the Sacred Writers as they wrote.
Ok, that's all very interesting. But where does Scripture show us another God-breathed source of teaching?
In the very same Gospel of St. John:
Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit [pneuma]." (John 20:20-22)
God quite literally breathed His Holy Spirit into His apostles. For what purpose? For infallibility: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13) If "infallible" means "without error," then certain "all the truth" is synonymous with "infallible."
I'm not so sure. The apostles were infallible when they wrote Scripture, but ... infallible all the time?
As teachers and guardians of the Deposit of Faith, absolutely. Their infallibility was not limited to their writings alone. So intent was Our Lord upon giving them His inspiration, His God-breathed-ness, that He could say to them, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
You see, this all stems from the Divine Pattern, and the unity that Jesus gave to His apostles. Read St. John's Gospel, and a certain pattern appears: what the Father does, the Son mimics, and the Son does nothing apart from what He sees the Father doing. The Son is not an improviser - He sees, He repeats:
... the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. (John 5:19)
Likewise, the Spirit is not an improviser, but only mimics what He observes in the Son:
... he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)
Finally, the apostles themselves are not improvisers, but mimics. Jesus prays:
As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. (John 17:18-19)
This phrase is repeated, you know, the idea of "just as the Father has sent me, so likewise I am sending you." The Son sends out the apostles because He is mimicking what He saw the Father do: He sent the Son. So there is this established pattern of the subordinate merely mimicking the superior: The Son does what He sees the Father doing; the Spirit only speaks what He hears the Son saying; the apostles are delegates of the Son who speak, not on their own authority, but with His authority (he who hears you is really hearing me).
Ok. How does infallibility fit into that picture?
Well, I wasn't finished yet. I also said this stems from the unity of the Father and the Son, and the Son with the Apostles.
I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me ... Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17:9, 11)
You see, the Apostles enjoyed complete and total unity with Our Lord, a unity that was identical to the union of Father and Son. That is why He could say, "he who hears you, hears me," and so on. They now speak with the same voice - and His voice is infallible. They are not infallible in themselves, but because they speak with His voice, the speak infallibly.
Your logic seems sound, but I'm having a hard time accepting that the apostles were infallible even in their oral teaching.
If you accept written Scripture as infallible, then you have to accept that the Apostles taught infallibly in their oral teaching as well. At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, when the Church officially declared that circumcision was no longer necessary to be initiated into the Covenant, St. James said that this decision "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." (Acts 15:28) Rather a presumptuous statement, wouldn't you agree? He certainly appears to be saying that they speak with the very voice of the Holy Spirit - which is exactly what Jesus promised them.
Likewise, St. Paul wrote:
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thess. 2:13)
You see? St. Paul explicitly equates their oral preaching with "the word of God."
I'm going to have to think more about that. But for now, let's just say I accept your reasoning here, and admit that the apostles were infallible both when they wrote and when they taught orally. So what? The apostles are dead now.
True.
But where in Scripture (or Tradition, for that matter) do you ever find an indication that this Divine Pattern of sending and mimicking was scheduled to change? If Jesus only does what He sees the Father doing, and if the Apostles only do what they see the Son doing, what would make you think that the next generation after the Apostles would suddenly decide to improvise? If the Apostles didn't feel free to deviate from the Divine Pattern, certainly their inferiors would not feel any more liberated to do so.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying - but that doesn't answer my question. What evidence do you have that the second generation of pastors were, like the Apostles, infallible?
Let me get you to step back for a moment and take another look - try to get a slightly different perspective on the question. I feel like you're almost treating infallibility as though it were some kind of magic trick, you know? Something the Apostles could pull out at parties, or whatever. In this case, the source of Truth is God; the protector or guardian of that Truth is the Church, or the Apostolic College.
What's the difference between infallibility and guardianship? You're still claiming the Church is infallible.
But not in the way you're probably thinking. Remember what Jesus said about the Spirit? He will not speak on His own, but only what He hears me saying. The Spirit's function is not to reveal new truths to the Church in every age, but merely to remind them of the Truth already transmitted. So when I say the Apostles and their successors are "infallible," I mean that they perfectly protect the Truth which has already been revealed.
Think of it this way: infallibility - to be 100% truth and without even the slightest taint of error - is an attribute of the teaching, of the message; the teacher is only infallible to the extent that he transmits the message, part-for-part, without deviation or invention. So the question here is whether or not the Church's teachers are given the gift of being able to preserve and pass on the infallible teaching, without adding to it or subtracting from it.
I mean, for that matter, we're both "infallible" in a sense. If I say, "Jesus is God," I have just spoken infallibly. But when you look at that way, maybe it's easier for you to see how infallibility is not an attribute of mine, but of the teaching which I merely repeated.
Let me try to sort this out, then. You're saying the the Apostles, their successors, their successors' successors, etc., are infallible in the sense that they perfectly transmit the original teaching of Jesus, without any deviation?
That's correct.
That's impossible. Fallible men are always prone to embellish, fudge the facts, elaborate the details, and corrupt the truth.
You're right - it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. Humans are always prone to error, but to say that they can err is not the same as saying that they will err. On a human level, yes, the Church could err, but we have God's promise that She will not err - so in that sense, it's impossible for Her to err, or else God is a liar.
I'm waiting, then - show me from Scripture that the Apostles and their successors were given the gift of infallibility.
Fine, as long as we understand that "infallibility" means that God grants them the gift of protecting the Truth from error. It's not so much a positive function as it is a negative function: it's not adding new revelation to the Faith, it's preventing error from creeping in.
St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy:
I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands ... Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (2 Tim. 1:6, 13-14)
Ss. Paul and Timothy had been given a special gift or "charism" by the Holy Spirit, namely, they had been "entrusted" with the Truth, and enabled to "guard" that which was entrusted to them. Actually, it would appear that St. Timothy was given this charism specifically by St. Paul, through a special laying-on-of-hands ceremony when St. Paul appointed St. Timothy to be a bishop in Ephesus.
Also, this seems to be a mark of the Church as a whole. St. Paul wrote:
If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
You've got to deal with the fact that it is the Church which Scripture itself points to as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Now wait a minute. The Church is the "pillar" of the Truth, not the source of Truth. A pillar simply holds up something else. So this doesn't rule out Scripture as being the sole source of the Truth.
No, we'll deal with the "source" question later. For right now, just recognize the implications of what you just admitted. A pillar holds something up. What is the pillar holding up, in this case? The text says "the truth."
Now if you're suggesting to me that the Church can (and has) taught error, or that there is no infallible Church that only teaches Truth all the time, then guess what? This text of Scripture is a lie.
What is the polar opposite of Truth?
Error.
Exactly, so if this "pillar" whose function is to hold up the Truth also holds up errors - well, these two things cancel each other out. By definition "Truth" excludes error, just as "white" excludes any shade of gray or black. If the Church, the pillar of Truth, can't hold up the Truth then this is an extremely weak pillar indeed.
But the "truth" which it holds up is Scripture, the only source of Truth.
So you're admitting that the Church infallibly interprets Scripture now?
Hey ... now ...
Well, that's the implication there. Again, if the Church holds up errors with regard to Scripture and its interpretation, then the Church is not a pillar of Truth at all, and St. Paul was mistaken (and say good-bye to your infallible Scripture as well). I'm willing to say that "the Truth" which the Church holds up certainly includes Scripture; I'm just not willing to say that Scripture alone is included in this phrase "the truth."
Right, of course, you include all sort of man-made traditions.
Traditions, yes. Man-made? I don't think so. Remember, you already admitted that sola scriptura isn't taught in Scripture, so let's not start throwing the "man-made tradition" grenade around just yet.
What I have to get you to see is that you're actually violating Scripture by insisting that God's Word only comes to us in the written medium.
I've already asked you, show me another inspired body of teaching and I'll follow it.
And I've already showed you that the Apostles themselves were "God-breathed," that their successors were given the charism of guarding the Truth, and that the Church can then rightly be called the "pillar of Truth."
But beyond that - and you knew this verse was coming - the Scriptures teach:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
Please notice (and do not side-step) the fact that St. Paul explicitly names two modes of transmitting the Faith: "by word of mouth" and "by letter." Oral and written. Scripture and Tradition.
Ok, then you should be able to show me an official list of what these "traditions" are that I'm supposed to follow.
Oh brother, here we go ...
Well, if you want me to follow St. Paul's advice here, then show me one of these so-called traditions that is not contained in Scripture, but is part of the Apostolic Teaching.
I've been down this road before, and it's a dead-end - you'll see why in a minute. Ooooo-kay, you want an example of an Apostolic Tradition not found in Scripture? How about the understanding of Mary as a partner with Our Lord in the Redemption?
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient... But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race ... And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22:4)
There's a tradition for you. Are you going to start believing it?
Sorry, but Irenaeus is appealing to Scripture here. He's contrasting Mary with Eve - this is not a valid example of an extra-biblical tradition.
This is why this is a dead-end argument. No Catholic worth his salt would try to say that we believe certain dogmas based purely on oral tradition, with absolutely zero support from Scripture. Scripture and Tradition flow from the same Divine Source - what is implicit in one is explicit in the other.
Of course, St. Irenaeus appeals to Scriptural types - but the point is, you believe his teaching is un-Scriptural, so it's rather disingenuous of you to say that this is not an example of a non-Scriptural tradition.
What you fail to appreciate here is that St. Irenaeus' interpretation of Scripture is part of that Tradition. You want a completely extra-biblical tradition? How about:
1) The Tradition of interpreting Mary as the New Eve
2) The Tradition of interpreting Scripture in support of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
3) The Tradition of interpreting Scripture in support of the Papacy
And so on and so on and so on.
But back to my point: you profess to be willing to submit to these Traditions, but what have you just done? You've just asked me to produce a written list of oral Traditions!
How is that in keeping with St. Paul's command to believe the teachings regardless of what form they come in, whether written or oral?
Of course I'm going to ask for a written list - how else am I supposed to verify the existence of these Traditions?
You ask the Church, the living voice of the Apostles, the pillar of Truth. There is really no excuse for your attitude here, which is precisely the opposite of what St. Paul commands. He says "hold to the teachings whether by word of mouth or letter," but you turn around and say, "I will hold to the teachings, by word of mouth only if also found in the letters." You have already rejected out of hand, before you even come to the table, one of the mediums which St. Paul commends to you.
In other words, your deep suspicion of anything oral, of anything not found written in Scripture, is completely the polar opposite of what St. Paul said: accept the teachings regardless of whether it comes orally or written down.
Well, like I said, you show me an official list of these traditions and then we'll talk.
There you go asking for written evidence again. This is really, really disingenuous. You act as though you can't know what this "list of traditions" is unless you see an inspired list. I have two responses to this:
1) You know darn well what this "list of traditions" is. Sit down with a piece of paper and write down all of the "man-made traditions" of the Catholic Church which you reject as unbiblical - there's your silly "list of traditions." See? Don't pretend like you don't know what they are; somehow you've managed to find out about them and commit them to memory, even though you're not even in the Church.
2) If you want to go down this road of "I can't know it unless I have an inspired list," then let's go there, but I'm going to turn the tables: show me your inspired list of which books belong in the Bible.
Somehow I knew you'd eventually bring up the Canon of Scripture argument.
Well, it's something you're going to have to deal with. You want to know how I can know the dogmas of the Church and the Traditions of the Apostles without an infallibly-defined list - I will say I learned it the same way you did: by word of mouth (fancy that!). I learned it further by watching the Church and observing how She behaves Herself in Her liturgy, in Her devotions, in Her prayers, in Her councils, and so on. Somehow both you and I ended up with a knowledge of what those teachings are, because they are the very things teachings that separate us: those dogmas which I believe, which you reject.
Now, I say back to you, how do you know which books belong in the Bible if you don't have a God-breathed, inspired list of those books?
The same way the Jews knew what their Old Testament Canon was without having to have an infallible Church council tell them.
And this is what we call "begging the question." You assume the Jews had a fixed Canon of Scripture, because you must somehow presume that they practiced a form of sola scriptura.
They most certainly did have a Canon. How else could Jesus hold them to the standard of Scripture, saying things like "search the Scriptures," or "have you not read the Scriptures," and so on?
I'm not denying that they had a certain core collection of writings that they accepted as authoritative - I am denying that they had a fixed Canon that was agreed upon by everyone. The Sadducees, for example, only held the first five books (Moses' books) as inspired by God.
But let's be honest: the New Testament writers quoted from an awful lot of literature, some of it pagan, some of it inspired, some of it what you would call "apocryphal." St. Paul quotes from Wisdom, St. Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch, and St. James quotes from Sirach. So apparently "quoted by a New Testament writer" is no kind of criterion by which to measure inspiration.
You know as well as I do that the Canon of Scripture is something external to Scripture - it is a "function" of Scripture, not part of the Divine Revelation.
This sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors; you haven't dealt with the question of how you determine which books are inspired and which ones aren't.
That's just the point: I don't determine that. God does. The criterion is simple - whatever is God-breathed is Canonical; whatever is not God-breathed is not Canonical. The Church does not give Scripture its authority, it merely stands back and recognizes that authority.
You still haven't answered the question. Whatever is God-breathed is Canonical, whatever isn't is not Canonical? Great! Now you've just moved the question back a step: which books are God-breathed?!
I agree with you: human authority does not "authenticate" or "determine" which books are inspired, in the sense that the Church can say, "Ok, Jude is inspired," and then - zap! - now that book is inspired. The Epistle of St. Jude was inspired the moment it was written; but who authoritatively recognizes that fact?
The Canon was something agreed upon by the universal church from the time of the Apostolic age. There was no question of whether Matthew's Gospel was inspired, or whether John's Gospel was inspired.
That doesn't help you, though. There are three problems here:
1) The early Church - so you claim - had agreed as to which books were inspired, and so you accept those books as inspired; but the early Church also agree about certain doctrines, such as the Eucharist, Infant Baptism, the Primacy of Peter, etc., and you refuse to accept those things.
2) The early Church also generally accepted the books of the Old Testament which you called "apocryphal," and had them removed from your Bible.
3) The early Church was not nearly as unified on the question of the New Testament books as you seem to imagine; in fact, they were more in agreement about the "apocryphal" books than they were on the New Testament.
That's nonsense. The Gospels were always accepted in the Church.
I'm not talking about the Gospels. The Gospels only make up four of the 27 books which you accept. The early Church remained uncertain of several of those books, especially 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation, Jude, and Hebrews. On the flip side, we have historical witness that the churches in the area of Corinth (the Corinthians) were reading an epistle from Pope St. Clement of Rome as though it were Scripture (i.e., they regularly read from it alongside the other liturgical readings from Scripture); the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were both considered canonical by certain churches in the early days.
Again, there was much more unanimity on the so-called "apocryphal" books - but you reject those out of hand!
Nonsense! When Luther removed those books from the Canon, he was acting on the precedent set by the council of Jamnia as early as 90 AD.
The council of Jamnia was a Jewish council held by anti-Christian Jews some 60 years into the Church's existence. They didn't like the fact that the Christians were using these books to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, and since these books were not as ancient as the others, the Jews had them removed.
But I thought we were looking to follow the example of the early Church here, not the early Synagogue?
Still, even in the early Church, these apocryphal books were rejected from the start.
Again, only someone who didn't know Church history could say that. Just read the Apostolic Fathers alone - St. Clement, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Barnabas, etc. What books do they quote from? Much like the New Testament, they quote from well-known OT texts, a few outright apocryphal works, and several of the so-called "apocryphal" works which Catholics have always accepted.
That's just not true.
Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you - you'll have to dig into those writings and find out for yourself, but I promise you that what I've just said is completely verifiable. Certainly by the 4th and 5th century, the Canonical lists were identical to the ones enumerated by the Council of Trent.
A quote from St. Francis de Sales is in order here:
I would chiefly lay stress on the authority of those books which exercise you the most. St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and the rest of the fathers consider Ecclesiasticus canonical. St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, honor Tobias as Holy Scripture. St. Cyprian again, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, believed the same of the Machabees. St. Augustine protests that: "it is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of the Machabees as canonical, not the Jews." What will you say to this? That the Jews had them not in their catalogues? St. Augustine acknowledges it; but are you Jews, or Christians? (The Catholic Controversy)
I still maintain that Luther was acting on ancient precedent in removing the seven books which the Catholic Church had added.
I can't stop you from believing that - but it's just not true. Do your historical homework: check the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage, Pope Gelasius' decree de libris canonicis, and Innocent I's Epistle to Exuperius. For that matter, observe the fact that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), which dates back to before Christ's birth, contained those seven books. It's a fact of history that the Apostles used this Septuagint! St. Paul especially, when he quotes from the Psalms, almost always quotes the Septuagint Greek version instead of the Hebrew version. And there are just certain sections of the New Testament that - it cannot be denied - quote or allude to passages in the seven books.
Give me a few examples.
St. Paul in Romans 1:18-29 borrows almost word-for-word from Wisdom 13:1-18; St. James' Epistle 3:1-12 sounds an awful lot like Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 5:11-6:1; Matthew 27:42-43 is, again, almost word-for-word a replica of Wisdom 2:12-20; St. Paul again in 1 Cor. 15:29ff uses the same argument and language that is used in 2 Macc. 12:43-44); St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:35 seems to refer to the story of the mother who loses seven sons to martyrdom in 2 Macc. 7.
I'll take a look at those. We seem to have gotten rather off the topic.
Yes, I agree. I'll just wrap it up by summarizing: Scripture itself never claims a "sola" status for itself, but it does point to a Church which is the "pillar of truth"; it does teach us to hold fast to all the traditions, without any sort of prejudice to whether those traditions are written or oral; and it does show us that Jesus intended to commit His own authority to the Apostolic College, to allow them to speak with His own voice; there is every indication that a Divine Pattern was begun - the pattern of sending the next generation out with your own power and authority, while mimicking the previous generation and improvising nothing - and that this pattern was not intended to be broken; and the evidence is strongly in favor of a Divinely-protected Church which is the authorized guardian of the Faith.
But what good is your infallible Church? Don't you have to fallibly interpret whatever the Church teaches? Didn't you have to engage in fallible private interpretation to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true Church?
Epistemology is fun, isn't it? Yes, I have to fallibly interpret whatever the Church teaches me. And yes, I had to fallibly reason my way through the Scriptures and Church History in order to arrive at the fallible decision that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
As to the first question: you seem to suggest that the Church serves no purpose, because no matter what She teaches, I have to fallibly interpret it. But what you forget is that the Church has the advantage over "Scripture Alone" precisely because the Church can continue to speak, continue to clarify, correct and judge where necessary. If I fallibly and erroneously interpret something the Church has taught, She has only to issue a clarification in the future. If that clarification isn't clear enough, there can be yet another clarification.
In any case, the advantage here is that we follow the Biblical pattern: there is an authoritative Voice to whom we defer when theological disputes arise; and rarely does the Church exercise Her charism to root out error unless a dispute has arisen.
As to the second question: I know where you're going with this. You will say that my future certainty in the infallible Church is only as certain as my first decision - the decision to listen to the Church. And, since that first decision was fallible, well, then I can have no real certainty about any future "infallible" Church teaching.
Now we've gotten into the issue of faith versus reason, and where certitude fits into the discussion. Suffice it to say that the Catholic Faith is still, after all these years, founded upon just that: faith. The evidence and Reason strongly point us towards the Church, but ultimately we leave evidence and Reason at the doorstep of Faith, and cross over without them.
You, in fact, have the same dilemma: you rest upon your infallible Scriptures, but you have fallibly reasoned your way to the conclusion that Scripture is infallible in the first place. Perhaps they are fallible after all, and thus your future choices are just as wrong as your first choice.
For that matter, your choice to believe in this person named "Jesus" was a fallible choice, and thus, the entirety of your religion rests on sand for certitude. And yet, you are certain of your choices, are you not?
Well alright, then, let's bring the question to a realistic plane - it's not as though I'm claiming Catholicism is based 100% on empirical evidence and scientific fact, while Protestantism is based on a wish and a prayer. Both are based on faith, ultimately; and both have a certain number of facts to recommend them. But I do claim that the majority of the facts are clearly on the side of Catholicism; history points to the Catholic Church, Scripture points to the Catholic Church, the Church Fathers point to the Catholic Church, and so on.
Alright, let me think some of this stuff through.
Fair enough - we'll talk again. I want to raise the issue of authority and Apostolic Succession with you.
Sounds good.
<< Home