Both groups claim to be catholic, that is, part of the apostolic, universal church of Jesus Christ.
We both believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The first, third and fourth mark of the Church, however, all have historical implications. For instance, a church which is both universal and one must also possess perpetuity. But where was the Protestant Church before the sixteenth-century?
Our Roman opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture . . . . God has declared that whoever adds to or takes away from His Word is subject to His curse.
He assumes that the presence of an oral tradition or teaching authority is necessarily an addition to the Scriptures, which is false. For the gospel was first spread by word of mouth, by preachers. Even Paul says, "I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you," that is, he claims that he was a faithful organ of transmission for God's revelation. Moreover, the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 is clear evidence that a teaching authority existed with the apostolic Church, for the council claimed that its own decision "seemed good" to the Holy Spirit. In other words, the conclusion they reached had Divine approval. Therefore, the oral tradition and the teaching authority of the Church were not "added to the Scripture," for they existed prior to the writing of the New Testament. If anything, the Church added the New Testament writings on to the oral tradition when they wrote them down for the instruction of later generations: though the Gospels and Epistles, by their inspired status, are now a focal point of that tradition.
Also, he misrepresents the Catholic position in saying that sacred Tradition is superior to sacred Scripture, for Tradition and Scripture are co-ordinate sources of faith (which seems to be the case in Acts 15, in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and in the documents of Vatican II). As the Catechism says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Dr. Godfrey's implication, then, that the Catholic Church is cursed for adding onto the Scriptures doesn't follow.
As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: "For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men."
This is confusing. If it resides only in the church but does not pertain to particular persons, then to what does it pertain? How else would the church's interpretation of Scripture be expressed, by majority vote? The quote is somewhat enigmatic.
Moses declared to all Israel: 'Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,' Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.
Notice the clear elements in these passages:
1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
3. In this Word they can find life.
Correction on the first and third point: Moses wrote the words that God told him. The words written by Moses do indeed give life, in a relative sense, but those words are not the Word himself, i.e. the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Scripture is a collection of words about the Word, pointing towards the Word, longing for the Word: but they are not the Word who gives life everlasting.
The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word.
Then why did the Apostles set up churches everywhere they went and continue to write letters to these churches instructing them? Did they not give the full message to those pagans whom they converted, or were those thus converted in need of their letters to develop and elucidate the original message?
But the Word alone was sufficient for salvation.
Again, the confusion between the words which long for the Word and the Word himself. If I may be allowed this distinction, the Bible is not the Word of God but the word of God. Christ is sufficient for salvation, not the law of Moses. Though the law of Moses nonetheless does give life, as do all things that are true. But you cannot attain the Beatific Vision by following the law of Moses per se.
If this principle of the sufficiency and clarity of the Word is true in the Old Testament, we can assume that it is all the more true in the New. The New Testament gloriously fulfills what the Old Testament promises.
Was the Old Testament passage “I am the God of Abraham” clear to the Jews before Jesus suddenly explained to them one of its meanings? Jesus’ own exegesis looks suspicious, yet he can neither deceive nor be deceived. But if true meanings can be present under the surface of the letter, how can they be clear? Did not Paul have to dispute, again and again, with the Jews? And moreover, if the word of God is so clear, then how come Protestants are so disunited in their exegesis and theology?
Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus.
When Paul spoke of the Scriptures he meant the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament, which was still incomplete at this time.
In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because those Scriptures give him clearly all that he needs for wisdom and preparation to instruct the people of God in faith and all good works. The Scripture makes him wise for salvation, and equips him with everything he needs for doing every good work required of the preacher of God.
Again, this does not support his point about the sufficiency and clarity of the New Testament, for the argument does not use terms univocally. The word "Scripture" is being used by St. Paul to mean the Old Testament and by Dr. Godfrey to mean the Old and the New Testament. Furthermore, if all the Scriptures are clear what does he make of 2 Peter 3:15-16?
He did not appeal to the oral tradition of Israel; He did not appeal to the authority of the rabbis or Sanhedrin; He did not even appeal to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Our Savior, in the face of temptation, turned again and again and again to the Scriptures. 'It is written,' He said.
So what? His tempter did the same. At which point He got tired of playing Bible-quoting games and told the devil to go away.
First, they will try to say that the phrase "the Word of God" can mean more than just the Bible. I have already granted that. The question before us is whether today anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation.
What is necessary for salvation under the Christian covenant does not change from age to age. So why the emphasis on 'today'? He stated from the beginning that the question was what was necessary to know for salvation. It seems to me that by 'necessary' he means what is the minimum requirement. Okay, but then what does it mean to say "Scripture is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation"? Notice: he does not say "The New Covenant is necessary to know," etc. but Scripture. Does he mean we have to read Scripture in order to be saved? The Christians in Acts did not read the New Testament; many uneducated Christians through out history did not read the Scriptures. And yet we have reason to believe and hope that they were saved. Until the printing press was invented the Gospel continued to be spread primarily by word of mouth, in sermons and such. Whole monastic orders were dedicated to being instructed in the faith and preaching the Good News to the people. What is necessary for salvation is the New Covenant, in which Christ poured out his blood for the salvation of many: for no one comes to the Father except through the Son. But again, why the emphasis on 'today'? Does he suggest that what was necessary for salvation in the early centuries – that is, hearing the Gospel preached, repenting and believing – is no longer necessary today because we have invented the printing press and so now everyone can read the Bible? Has the printing press changed our relationship with God and no longer made it possible for Him to save us unless we read the New Testament? By no means! But of course he cannot be saying this – it is sheer nonsense, and contradicts God's omnipotence. I don't think I understand what he is saying.
Furthermore, why does he want to know the bare minimum of truth we need to know in order to be saved? It is an important question certainly, but having read the New Testament is not a prerequisite for salvation. It is simply this: love God (and this I was learned before I could read). More interesting is the fullness of truth into which the Spirit has been leading us.
Our opponents need to show not that Paul referred to his preaching as well as his writing as the Word of God -- I grant that; they need to show that Paul taught that the oral teaching of the apostles would be needed to supplement the Scriptures for the Church through the ages. They cannot show that because Paul did not teach that, and the Scriptures as a whole do not teach that!
This is hardly a convincing argument. It is an argument from silence: because we have no record of Paul teaching that the oral tradition "would be needed to supplement the Scripture for the Church through the ages," therefore it is not the case. I could just as well say: because we have no record of Paul saying the New Testament (which was still coming into existence) "would be needed to supplement the oral tradition for the Church through the ages" therefore it is not the case. This argument is only valid if you assume that the Scriptures are sufficient, which is what he is trying to demonstrate and so, for the purposes of the argument, can't be assumed.
And why does it have to be one or the other. Why not both?
Our Roman opponents, while making much of tradition, will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is.
Actually, if he wants to understand it, he should read Dei Verbum carefully. Also, he could have looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia and found this article on Tradition, and also this article on the errors of "Traditionalism" - just to clarify what the Church is not saying. Then there is this and also this from the Catholic Catechism, both admittedly short but with reference to other works that could be read in their full contexts for greater understanding. Or again he could go to the Vatican homepage, do a search for "tradition," and learn how the word is actually used in church documents. Or again, there is Newman’s famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which sheds much light on sacred Tradition.
Moreover, quick answers and explanations to profound questions often err. Can he tell me in one sentence exactly what the nature of the Church is, or explain what it means to say that God's essence and existence are one? Religious questions are often mysterious in their nature and cannot be answered with quick and easy answers.
But what do Roman apologists mean when they assert the authority of tradition? Historically, they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. For example, one has said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture. But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles. It is impossible to know what the real Roman position is on this matter.
This is unconvincing scholarship. Cite specific authors, works, etc. As the previous link to the CE's article on tradition says, the distinction between Tradition and tradition is essential to understand the Catholic theology about this deep and subtle topic. If he wants to understand it he will have to read more, not just make shadow references to people who might have disagreed and say, "See, look, they don't even understand it!"
The Second Vatican Council expressed itself with deliberate ambiguity: "This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . . For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her." What does that mean? It certainly does not give us any clear understanding of the character or content of tradition.
I get the sense he is not trying to understand what it means anymore. At times the Apostles did not understand everything Christ said to them, even after he explained it. Christ promised us the Spirit to lead us into all truth. What are we to say then, "Yep, we now know the full truth and the Holy Spirit doesn't need to lead us anymore"? All that the Council is saying here is that the apostolic tradition (what has been handed over by the Apostles) is not fully realized. It seems perfectly plausible that there was more to that morning of wind and tongues of fire than anyone has yet realized.
As Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, "I am tradition." The overwhelming arrogance of such a statement is staggering.
The quote is taken out of the context of his life and person: when the Pope said la tradizione sono io he was actually making a joke and playing on the remark attributed to Louis XIV (1643-1715) l'etat c'est moi (I am the state). Pope Pius IX, beatified on 3 September 2000, was not actually as arrogant and wicked as he is made out to be by Dr. Godfrey – who could probably use a good laugh.
(1) The Bible teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1:5-7), but tradition says they are different offices.
This is a silly objection: in any living tradition, which the Christian tradition most emphatically is since it began with the Resurrection and has Life itself as its source, these offices are subject to a slow, natural and organic growth depending on the culture, time and circumstances of the people they have to minister to. (Cf. Aidan Nichols' "Holy Orders" for a development of this office.)
(3) The Bible teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
More bad scholarship. The following is taken from a long article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Sacrifice of the Mass:
Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its singleness and its power, Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holier having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb., ix 12). This does not mean that mankind is suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence in Paradise and set above the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption. Otherwise children would be in no need of baptism nor adults of justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion" spoken of by Paul can therefore refer only to the objective side of redemption, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst after justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction between objective and subjective redemption, which belongs to the essence of Christianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ". This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice exactly as the sacraments do it without the use of sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed or its value enhanced.If Dr. Godfrey has studied the topic more carefully, he would have seen that the Catholic Church does teach that Christ's sacrifice was offered once and for all. As before, he is equivocating terms: the term 'sacrifice' as it is applied to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, and as it is applied to the sacrifice of the Mass. Did he not know there was a distinction? He is, literally, confusing the issue. (Here is another interesting article about sacrifice in general.)
(4) The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4, 5), but tradition says that we should bow down to statues.
I don't know what I think about these one line over-simplified misinterpretations of Catholic theology. The following is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "The Veneration of Images":
The Fathers of Nicaea II further distinguish between absolute and relative worship. Absolute worship is paid to any person for his own sake. Relative worship is paid to a sign, not at all for its own sake, but for the sake of the thing signified. The sign in itself is nothing, but it shares the honour of its prototype. An insult to the sign (a flag or statue) is an insult to the thing of which it is a sign; so also we honour the prototype by honouring the sign. In this case all the outward marks of reverence, visibly directed towards the sign, turn in intention towards the real object of our reverence -- the thing signified. The sign is only put up as a visible direction for our reverence, because the real thing is not physically present. Every one knows the use of such signs in ordinary life. People salute flags, bow to empty thrones, uncover to statues and so on, nor does any one think that this reverence is directed to coloured bunting or wood and stone.It is difficult to image someone bowing before a statue (even a neo-pagan) who at the same time is able to give it absolute worship. It is no more idolatry than holding your hand over you heart and saying the Pledge of Allegiance in front of the American flag. Also, there is something odd about all of these. In researching this he must have come across distinctions, clarifications, and refutations of his misinterpretation. It sounds as if he read them and said, "What? Relative and absolute worship? I don't understand that: it sounds the same to me!" The sincerity of his inquiry is becoming suspicious.
(5) The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community.
First, as before, he is equivocating terms. "Saints" is used in Scripture to mean "a Christian," but in Catholic theology to refer to those blessed dead who have attained the glory of heaven. He seems to have completely failed to notice this glaring distinction. Second, he is not looking at the whole Bible, but only its parts: he is not taking into account the principle of diversity, that "there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit". Again, see Aidan Nichols' "Holy Orders" for a development of the priestly office.)
(6) The Bible says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ.
As we have become the adopted children of the Kingdom through the only-begotten Son of God, so Mary, the saints and all Christians can participate in the intercession of the sole Mediator between God and man. Moreover, just as you can rejoice in the beauty of a sunset without offending God, whose nature is supremely beautiful and makes possible the sunset, so you can use the mediation of Mary and the saints without offending the Mediator, who makes possible their mediation.
(7) The Bible says that all Christians should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.
Christ's death does not mean I am saved but that I can be saved. There are three elements of salvation: salvation as a past event (Rom 6:6, Rom 8:3), as a present reality (1 Jn 4:15, Lk 19:8-9), and as a future hope (1 Cor 1:18, Rom 13:11). All are essential. Unless we persevere in the grace of God, we shall not see God.
The Bible did prove dangerous in the sixteenth century; most who read it carefully became Protestants!
It seems then their decision was prudent.
Such discoveries about tradition led the Reformers back to the Bible. There they learned that the Scriptures must stand as judge of all teaching. The Scripture teaches that it is the revelation of God, and is therefore true in all that it teaches.
It would stand to reason, then, that with this revival of interest in the only infallible source of truth there would also be a return to the one faith which the Catholics had abandoned. But along with 'only Scripture' seems to come an implied 'only me' for interpretation of that Scripture; but once the individual mind is the absolute judge there will arise (and have arisen) as many contradictions in denominations as their are private interpretations.
In fact, it seems that sola Scriptura makes a Magisterium of the mind. Are not the multitudes of Protestant denominations evidence that each has become a Pope unto himself, that is, that the authority of the see of Peter has not been effectively resisted but merely exiled to a new location?
And remember that neither the Scriptures, nor the great majority of the fathers of the ancient church period, understand the authority of the church in the way they do.
The mistake he makes here is addressed in Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine.
At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, "Rome has spoken, the matter is settled." Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, "Christ has spoken, the matter is settled." Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.
Not very convincing. He fails to take into account why Augustine said "Rome has spoken" in the first place, and whether his "Christ has spoken" was actually a denial of Rome's authority. He does a poor job of representing the situation. What was the first question about, what was the second question about?
If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.
But, as he pointed out, all Protestants accept Scripture as the standard and judge; and, if anything, there has resulted less hope for unity than before.
Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant?
But he was talking to a certain people at a certain time, the Jews well-educated in the Old Testament. His claim is not absolute for all cultures at all times. When he goes to Gentile countries and becomes "all things to all men," he does not appeal to the Scriptures at all (since it would be irrelevant in that context). If he concludes by the first example that we are to take Scripture as the sole determinate in matters of faith and morals than one could just as easily determine in the second that Scripture is never to be a determinate in matters of faith and morals (except in the rare case of converting Jewish people). Both of these conclusions seem to me to err on different sides.
Dr. Godfrey earlier remarked about the "contradiction" of Rome for teaching (at a certain time and place) that, for the sake of restraining errors, Scripture is not to be translated into the vulgar and (at a different time and place) encouraging the laity to read the sacred books. So the Church deemed one thing appropriate at one time and not at another time – so what? Why is it a big deal if matters of practice change? In both cases I see that the first priority of the Church is the salvation of souls (times being what they were then, and what they are now).
No! He did not say any of these things.
This is a weak argument. The Church is, in one sense, in a content state of reflection on the depositum. Therefore as the history of Christianity progresses we come to a fuller understanding of the truth, even as after the Council of Jerusalem Christians understood that the Gentiles are not bound by the law of Moses.
No comments:
Post a Comment