As we saw last time, Trent claims the following:
. . . seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
I noted last time that I would evaluate the claims that (1) Christ has spoken through a tradition that is carried through time by a succession of popes and (2) that the argument that sola Scriptura "Scripture supreme" is false because the tradition has the same authority that Scripture has is a self-defeating claim.
So now the second proposition that the claim that Scripture and tradition have an equal authority is a self-defeating claim. It is self-defeating because one can only have one supreme authority, not two. Either both are the same primary authority, and therefore, not different authorities or one must bow to the other. In this case, although Trent is claiming here that both are equal in their authority, the real claim is that the church is the only supreme authority and the Scripture is a product of that authority. This is a very different claim than the one made by the council.
If Scripture is equal in authority to tradition then tradition cannot say anything contrary to it since it is the same authority. If tradition is equal in authority to Scripture then Scripture cannot say anything contrary to it because it is the same authority. This is simple enough. The problem is that this is not how claims are examined. Because of the claim made by Trent, all scriptural interpretation must conform to tradition, not vice versa. The claim that the Bible is God's Word is not in dispute between Roman Catholicism and Protestants. It is the claim that tradition carries the same level of authority as the Bible, and contrary interpretations mean that the argument is not merely over what the Bible says but whether the tradition accurately interprets the Bible. But this in itself somewhat admits that the Bible is superior to tradition since what is claimed to be the Word of God must be judged by what is known to be the Word of God. Hence, in practicality, the Roman Catholic doctrine implies sola Scriptura in that it must argue that its traditions rightly interpret and harmonize with the biblical text. No one is arguing that the text of Scripture must be altered in order to adhere to tradition (even though this was done a few times in church history). Everyone is arguing that what they believe is biblical or in harmony with the Bible, and in this regard, Trent has already conceded without knowing it.
The reason why most Roman Catholics don't realize that their doctrine implies sola Scriptura is because they usually have some ridiculous caricature of it. No one is arguing that Scripture contains all truth or that it alone has any authority, etc. It is simply the norm that must norm all other norms, and Trent treats it this way as well. Tradition and Scripture must be in harmony, but only one is claimed to be from Christ (tradition) and the other known to be from Him (Scripture). The one (tradition) is then only made known to be the Word of God by its harmonization with the other (Scripture), which then means that Scripture is supreme.
Now, modern Roman Catholic apologists have seen this dilemma and shoot back that Scripture is unknown without tradition in terms of what books belong in the canon. The problem with this is that it becomes an impossible dilemma, as the claim that tradition has authority either comes from the Bible, which is supposedly unknown without the authority of tradition or it comes from tradition which is unknown without the known Word of God from the Bible. Again, this ends up being self-defeating. Anyone can claim to have a tradition from Jesus that is authoritative. What is to authenticate such a claim? And this brings us to our next discussion.
In order to escape this dilemma, certain traditions like EO or RC set up the tradition of the physical succession of the apostolic office. Hence, if one has the physical office, he has the authority of the apostles, and if he has the authority of the apostles, then one can authenticate what is the Word of God that way.
Leaving for a moment the idea that this is yet another tradition itself that needs authentication, and is therefore just kicking the can down the road to become self-defeating, how does an EO make a claim against an RC? Which tradition is the apostolic one? "Oh, it's ours because we have the physical seat of Peter talked about in Matthew 16, which we interpret to be the singular bishopric of Rome not mentioned either by that text or anywhere else in the Bible." "Oh, no, it's ours because we have the conciliar authority of the apostles we see in John 20 and Acts 15 that makes no prescriptive argument that apostles transfers to singular patriarchs and bishops that come together in councils." However, even if the Scripture was explicit for any one of these two traditions, this is implying that Scripture is known already in order to establish the tradition that would be rightly interpreting the Word of God. How was it known before it was known? The tradition establishes what the Word of God is among the writings which establishes what the Word of God is in the tradition so that it can establish what the Word of God is in Scripture? This doesn't quite work without assuming that the Word of God is known in Scripture either already without tradition or what the known Word of God is already in tradition without the Scripture being known. Either way, one has to assume which one has a self-authenticating nature to it or one ends up on the merry-go-round.
I would suggest that Trent didn't just get this wrong because it conflicts with Protestant beliefs. It got it wrong because it's illogical.
Now, one could argue that both are self-authenticating but this begs the question to anyone on the outside of this belief and also as to why Prots accept the Scripture as the Word of God, something that we would argue can only be true of the regenerate ("My sheep hear My voice"), but do not hear Christ's voice in traditions that they see as contradicting Scripture or are unnecessary to knowing Christ. How can they hear Jesus' voice in Scripture and say, "Amen," but not hear His voice in traditions if it is the same self-authenticating voice to those who can only hear if they are genuinely regenerate (1 Cor 2:6-16)? How can one have an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches in Scripture but not hear what He says to the churches in tradition if "having an ear to hear" means you hear what He says regardless of the medium?
There is nothing to say that Christians can't hear too much and mistaken their traditions for Christ's voice, but there is plenty in Scripture to suggest that whatever Christ says, His people have an ear to hear it. In fact, this seems to be the point of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Everyone, from greatest to smallest, will know Him because His law, i.e., the Scripture, will be written on their minds. Any promise that traditions will be written on their minds too?
There is still all the more to mention how traditions through both popes speaking with authority and councils also speaking with authority have contradicted one another. So what is done? They were judged by Scripture as to whether they were faithful to the apostolic teaching in Scripture. This is the teaching passed down through the creeds and councils we only now accept as the orthodox ones, but at the time, all of that was in dispute, so much so that you even had the bishop of Rome adopt what all sects of Christendom now consider heresies (e.g., Honorius). Where was the physical seat then? (And, no, the claim that no one called him a heretic then only magnifies the fact that no one knew what the heresies were yet because there was no seat of authority that could decide the matter. The teachings of Scripture had to be discussed and debated.)
And who had the right interpretation of the Filioque? Who is to decide? Our tradition versus your tradition? And how do we establish those without an established Scripture? And how do we establish Scripture without an established tradition? To say it like the Reformed Bros., "By what authority?"
I'm going to continue through the council because I think it would be beneficial but this, of course, is a massive problem and why such confusion allows for the altering of so many beliefs and practices through the ages. When there is no real fixed Word of God that is known through self-authentication, and one can interpret it based on tradition rather than via the exegesis of the text itself that already contains what is needed to do so, one ends up being at the beck and call of the zeitgeist (hence, Trent looks different from Vatican I and both look very different from Vatican II and they all will look different from whatever councils we get in the future, but the Scripture says what it says from its creation to this very day).
No comments:
Post a Comment