Theologian Carl Truman has a helpful post explaining the different views of tradition held by Protestants and Catholics:
Ask a thoughtful Protestant about where Protestantism and Catholicism most significantly diverge, and it is likely that they will mention the closely related areas of tradition and authority. Now, Protestants tend to be very suspicious of any talk of tradition as playing a role in theology as it would seem to stand somewhat in tension with the Reformation’s view of scripture alone as the authoritative basis for theological reflection. In fact, the Reformation itself represented a struggle over two types of tradition, that which scholars call T1, tradition based upon scripture as the sole source of revelation (the position of Protestants such as Luther and Calvin, and of some pre-Tridentine Catholics) and that which they term T2, tradition based upon two sources, namely, scripture and an oral tradition mediated through the teaching magisterium of the Church. This latter was arguably the position codified at the Council of Trent, although it would seem that the boundary between T1 and T2 is in practice often blurred, and very difficult to define in any formal or precise sense; nevertheless, as a heuristic device the distinction is useful and it is really only as Protestants come to understand exactly what the Catholic view of tradition is (i.e., T1 plus T2) that they can come to properly understand how tradition (T1) does not subvert the notion of scripture alone.
(Via: Justin Taylor)
August 30th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
It seems obvious to me, that whatever distinctions and labels are applied, every single Christian group has the 3 pillars on which truth claims rest–scripture, tradition, and a magisterium.
Every group places trust in scripture, including of course, we Catholics. Each group has a tradition of how that scripture is interpreted and used, and for that matter, which elements of faith, morals, and practice are emphasized; and each group has a magisterium, whether it be a synod, a Lambeth conference, a collection of elders, or simply one or more prominent theologians whose ideas have primacy–or possibly each individual person, following the “popehood of all believers” concept.
It seems to me a natural fact (if you will, a philosophical truism) that a faith community simply can’t function as such without these three pillars in some form or other. Seems to me healthier to simply admit the fact and move on from there.
August 30th, 2011 | 11:17 pm
Protestants, such as myself, upon gaining a certain age and having read extensively and lived life upon reflection realize that even before the Reformation there was already 1500 years of Christian thought and action outside just the Scripture: church councils, the writings of the Church fathers, various debates, and traditions. The Church has a vast body of writings and thought that compliment and explain the Scriptures. Should we add an additional 1,000 years of Jewish practice? In my
church I have been most disappointed in the lack of strong Bishops—I think most of what goes wrong in the church is due to weakness at the Bishop level. Who will stand up and defend the 2000 year traditions of the Church? Who will defend traditional marriage? Who will stand up and defend the helpless unborn? We have too many Protestants who hold too narrow a view on T1 and T2 as you’ve just stated. Christians of all faiths must acknowledge the wisdom of ancient traditions, the wisdom and grace of the church elders and fathers and not be so quick to dismiss anything that is old and time tested and sturdy.
August 31st, 2011 | 12:04 am
Joe DeVet,
I agree with your idea that everyone relies on these pillars and that we are best off moving on from there. We Methodists, however, describe four pillars or more precisely four legs to a quadrilateral: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. These legs are not equal but have separate functions. As the Book of Discipline explains, the “living core of Christian faith” is “revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.” Most forms of Christianity adhere to this definition, though some don’t.
August 31st, 2011 | 5:26 am
I sometimes feel it is worth while reminding ourselves that, although in modern English, “tradition” is all but exclusively used in the passive sense of something delivered, both the Greek “paradosis” and the Latin “traditio” are commonly used in the active sense of the act of delivering or handing over.
Anyone reading the Tridentine Decree [Sess IV die VIII. Aprilis, 1546 de canonicis scripturis] without preconceptions will be struck by how much the active sense is present to the minds of the authors.
August 31st, 2011 | 8:20 am
Michael, I’m neither philosopher nor theologian, so I’m probably in over my head already!
I don’t see any reason to differ with your construct, though I would group things a bit differently, but observing that reason and experience are tools of a magisterium. For coherence, there must be an authority to sift and gather from all sorts of experience, under the guidance of reason.
Bl John Paul II demonstrated this sort of sifting and synthesis in his writings, and I commend “Veritatis Splendor” as an example. He saw things through a personalist lens utilizing phenomenology (experience), while the shadow of Aquinas was never out of sight (reason), and scripture was foremost. Like many of his productions, Veritatis opens with a deep reflection on a scripture scene, this one being the encounter with the rich young man.
I suggest Vetitatis, Don, because here was a Bishop who stood strong against a plague of deviant moral theologies, and this is his summa contra them.
August 31st, 2011 | 8:03 pm
Joe DeVet,
I’m in the same boat, being neither philosopher nor theologian, so we can be off-base together!
When you say that “reason and experience are tools of a magisterium,” I’d say that scripture is also a tool of the magisterium, which means that ultimately the magisterium is drawing on all four parts of the Wesleyan quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
September 1st, 2011 | 11:32 am
I appreciate Carl Truman’s thoughtfulness and his being very open and sensitive to the Catholic position. Even so, what needs to be addressed is this: What can possibly justify the continued tolerance of the dismemberment of the Body of Christ on Earth? Christian disunity has resulted in the state, rather than showing favoritism to one of the many Christian factions, simply rejecting the Judea-Christian heritage of Western Civilization. That hasn’t worked out too well for millions during the reign of the Third Reich in Germany, the child in the womb or the countless victims of euthanasia and eugenics, which, believe it or not, is still a major component of the social policy of the contemporary secular state. It was not without a good reason that Christ fervently prayed that we would be one even as He and the Father are One.
I am not putting the burden of restoring unity only on the Protestants here. What that unity of belief and practice is, is to be found in the unanimous beliefs of the Church Fathers. I think contemporary Protestant and Catholic Scripture scholars alike have departed from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture. Although that departure hasn’t been reflected in the official teaching of the Catholic Church — the Holy Spirit won’t let that happen.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact