You do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Rom 11:18)
I have been accused of selecting reading material on the criteria of whether it will be useful in on-line arguments (more accurately: I've been accused that it appears that I do so). In a different accusation (by someone else long ago), I've been told that I'm encyclopedic. I'm not sure what to make of this, other than that I should argue from ignorance. In any case, both are untrue. I select my reading material based on the apparent value it will have for me, whether it be to bring laughter, to enjoy the tale (usually with a moral lesson), or to shore up perceived weaknesses in my knowledge. It so happens, I believe this nation to be in dire straits, and I am very willing to study the charts that may help navigate these hazards.
The title of this essay borrows from Mark P. Shea's book of the same title. The truth is: I read a book; I digest the ideas therein; and if it is good, I will integrate those ideas. And so I have a startling argument (at least I hope it is a startling argument) that is and was wholly unplanned. I am sure that this will be self-evident. For I need to beg my perspective, my Catholic perspective in a largely diverse Protestant nation. I do not wish to insult my Christian brethren, but I cannot deny I claim to see the truth of the matter, and an essay will fail to bring up the necessary proofs to back up my bald assertions. An essay is too short.
I have on one of my bookshelves or in one of my book piles an old textbook on government. I remember clearly one idea that it taught me. All constitutions have written and unwritten components, even the American constitution. At one extreme, the American constitution relies heavily on its written component. On the other extreme is the British constitution which lacks the formal document we Americans have, but have no doubt that the British constitution is real. Our founding fathers, before they declared their separation, laid claim to their constitutional rights as British subjects.
As a Catholic, I believe in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and I realize that many Protestants hold to sola scriptura to a certain extent whether that be strongly held or weakly held. Sola scriptura is just a fancy Latin way of saying solely based on the Bible. Mark Shea has a nice way of describing the Catholic interaction of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the lens through which the light of the Truth of Sacred Scripture is viewed. In the Protestant world, each man himself is a judge of the Truth of Sacred Scripture. I'm sure that I'll get objections to that last statement, but I doubt many Protestants would submit to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture made by the Catholic Church.
There is a rough parallel, a rough analogy between written and unwritten parts of a constitution and Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. To be sure, constitutions are man-made inventions and subject to the condition of fallen men. It is with this in mind that drove John Adams and our founding fathers to declare that our constitution was written for a Christian people. Only a moral people could be bothered to follow it.
"Perfesser" J., our Anglican-in-exile, believes that the Catholic Church is a far more conservative institution than the Anglican Communion because the Catholic Church has a pope. Well, this is only partially right. It is wrong in the sense that a pope placed in charge of the Anglican Communion would make it a conservative institution. It doesn't work that way, and it misses the point. It also ignores that the Orthodox Church has survived fairly well without a pope (although it is arguable that the Orthodox Church is slightly more liberal than the Catholic Church and has not fared as well in confronting the heresy of modernism).
The secret is Sacred Tradition. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are Apostolic. They trace their authority back to the apostles and therefore back to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now Professor J. understands the need for obedience. He rightly points out that Justice Moore should have obeyed the authority of the federal courts. Many Republicans and conservatives understand the need to preserve the rule of law. I understand that Supreme Court justices are tasked to interpret the Constitution just as the Supreme Pontiff is tasked to interpret the Sacred Scripture (another rough analogy, I know).
I don't deny Marbury v. Madison, and the need and constitutionality of judicial review. But I asked Professor J. what I believe to be the most important point. The good professor failed to address it -- probably because I failed to stress it -- so I repeat it here: "I have to ask, which is the more supreme: the hundred years of case law (precedent), or the original text of the Constitution as it reads now?"
The rough analogy is to ask whether our good professor should accept the Episcopal Church's twisted interpretation of Sacred Scripture (with all its emanations and penumbras) or Sacred Scripture itself. Precedent is a rough analogy to Sacred Tradition. Precedent is the lens through which we interpret the Constitution.
C.S. Lewis makes the point in The Abolition of Man that only those who acknowledge all of Tradition (I am not strictly speaking of Sacred Tradition here, and additionally I distinguish between small 't' traditions and capital 'T' Traditions) are capable of judging a change in Tradition. Those who have one foot inside Tradition and one foot outside Tradition -- those who selectively pick and choose which parts of Tradition they follow -- really are the sort of people who are placing themselves above Tradition. They claim for themselves, they appoint themselves to be judges of Tradition. It doesn't take much for some other bright folks to ask, "By what authority?" These questioners may understand the question correctly and know that the innovators don't have the authority they've claimed to usurp, or they will incorrectly answer the question and attempt to place themselves above Tradition as well, and chaos will ensue.
The Catholic Church claims to be obedient to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and it is there that her authority lies. She can defend and preserve the Deposit of Faith because she is obedient to it. It is a feedback loop. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition gives the Church authority. And the Church therefore cannot use her authority in defiance of Sacred Tradition and Scripture or she will lose that authority. The entire institution will collapse (even if it's in slow motion). Some people, including some Catholics, believe that someday the Catholic Church will ordain woman priests or priestesses. But that cannot happen. The Church has ruled that discussion closed, and to rule otherwise now would be to chop away at her foundational roots.
I have tried to impress upon our good professor the importance of Secret Agent Man's discourse on Orestes Brownson. It is important to understand what I mean when I say that Episcopal Church has placed herself above Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Whenever anyone decides for himself selectively what parts of Tradition he obeys, he is no longer obedient to Tradition, but has declared himself above Tradition -- an imperfect judge to be sure, to reject the experience of thousands of generations and in the case of Christianity to reject the revelation of God. It does no good to say that such a person is obedient to most of Tradition, for that person will have no grounds to object when his brother decides to reject even more Tradition. Only from obedience springs authority.
And so I am back to my question about the hundred years of precedent that has twisted the meaning of our Constitution into something other than it clearly reads. This is something our good professor cheerfully acknowledges (or maybe not so cheerfully, but I am rhetorically minded today). Our good professor also acknowledges that the Supreme Court is selective in its enforcement of the Constitution, expanding the meaning of some clauses and allowing other clauses to go unenforced. Could we not say that the Supreme Court has placed itself above the Constitution? Indeed, I am saying just that!
I have argued that the Supreme Court has claimed for itself the right to amend the Constitution. It claims the right to add to the Constitution as it has added the privacy right to support abortion and strike down sodomy laws. Eventually, the Supreme Court will claim the right to redefine marriage. It claims the right to subtract from the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment is lifeless and the Second Amendment is threatened with oblivion. The Supreme Court claims the right to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever it says it means. Can anyone doubt that it stands above the Constitution? And sadly, the executive and legislative branches have ceded any right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution themselves, and what was once thought to be the weakest branch of government is arguably the most powerful (lower courts even claim the power to compel the state legislatures and city councils to enact taxes!). The Fifth Article of the Constitution, the only authorized power to amend the Constitution, cannot compare with the ease and rapidity to amend that Supreme Court claims for itself.
If we agree that the Supreme Court stands above the Constitution, then we must understand that the court is no longer obedient to the Constitution -- it is not below the Constitution. It begs the question, "By what authority?"
[This essay was originally posted at GIGO]
Posted by Bob at September 2, 2003 08:55 PMI would suggest an alternate definition of Tradition than that of a lens through which to view Scripture.
Rather, Tradition is the dialogue between Scripture and the living community in history.
The reason I suggest this defintion is that Sacred Tradition has obviously developed over time.
It happens the way a debate often unfolds in discussion and insights that were not imagined when the discussion started.
There is simply no way that Saint Peter would have said that the mother of Jesus was "Immaculately Conceived". A first century Jew would not know about biological conception. Furthermore, the term "original sin" was not yet conceived (that came with Augustine). Perhaps Peter may have thought Mary a holy woman...maybe even sinless, but he certainly did NOT pass down a doctrine of "Immaculate Conception" to his successor.
Yet, I believe this doctrine. I believe it because what Peter did pass down to his successor was a promise that the living and resurrected Christ is always with the Church - the Holy Spirit dwells in the community of faith and will not permit her to wander too far from truth.
Referring to Tradition as a "lens" implies that Tradition is a static object.
Tradition is a living and breathing promise that God is with her people as history unfolds and we face new questions and challenges that the Apostles never dreamed of facing!
We maintain continuity with the past, just an adult is the same person who once a child.
However, continuity with the past is not identity with the past.
Obedience to Tradition is not mere blind obedience to authority. Obedience to Tradition is ultimately faithfulness to the community where the Spirit lives and breathes!
Check out my Progressive Catholic Reflections for a different perspective on our wonderful Tradition: http://liberalcatholic.blogspot.com/
Posted by: jcecil3 at September 4, 2003 06:52 PMThanks for stopping by, Jcecil3.
I'm willing to admit that all analogies have defects. But in the case of lens, your objection falls short. Mark Shea did suggest, but I did not mention, that the eye is the forgotten lens that Protestants miss (in other words, Protestants do follow Tradition even though they are unaware of it). The eye is a living lens, so I see no reason why a lens must be viewed as an inanimate object. In any case, the analogy was useful for its purpose, I do not feel compelled to carry it as the perfect model for Tradition.
I don't have a problem with development of Tradition, but your words betray you:
1) "We maintain continuity with the past, just an adult is the same person who once a child."
2) "However, continuity with the past is not identity with the past."
The first is consonant with the idea of development of Tradition. The second implies that a human child could develop into a gorilla if only we could inject the DNA to affect the change. The child is the same person as the adult; identity is retained.
Interestingly, the growth of a child into an adult can be viewed as obedience. It is obedience to the natural order. And it's a blind obedience.
I suspect that the test of St. Peter is that if he were transported to modern times, would he be shocked and repulsed, or would the cartoon lightbulb appear above his head? That is, would he recognize the new vision of truth as harmonious with his old vision of truth?
The Deposit of Faith is an unchanging Truth. It is our understanding that develops.
Posted by: Bob at September 5, 2003 02:56 PMBob,
I got to thinking last night after I typed that maybe I should not have used the word "identity" for the reason you point out. It can be confused with "personal identity", and of course a child grown to an adult is still the same person.
What I was trying to convey in the comparison of "continuity" to "identity" is that Tradition does not imply an exacting sameness with the past. I meant to convey the concept of "identical", as when we say those two cars are identical only when they are the exact same make, model, color and so forth. We would never say a Ford Mustang is identical to a Toyota Corrolla.
The point I am trying to make is that if Tradition develops, and even changes, we cannot view those who question Tradition as "disobedient". When I say Tradition changes, we can all agree that perhaps what Aquinas would call an "accidental change" occurs, but this is a change none the less.
People who question Tradtition may be on the cutting edge of the next development under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The point to Tradition itself as "authority" implies the static image I was referring to, which is reinforced in the manner the image of lens is used.
Of course, we all have lenses through which we view reality (perhaps mine are rose colored). Catholicism is part of the bias through which I see the world. But the lens I speak of is not apart form Scripture, nor is used soley for viewing Scripture. rather, the lens is an entire gestalt - a world-view through which I view all reality.
So, I am not suggesting that there is not a meaningful way to refer to Tradition as a lens.
In this sense, I agree entirely with you that the Protestant has a Tradition whether she or he is aware of it or not. Their Tradition shares a common root in Jesus, and a common trunk in the pre-Tridentine Western Christian tradition. The branch that has become Protestantism is articulated and shaped by such people as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Wesley's, and so forth down to Billy Graham and others.
While "lens" may be a useful image, I am picking up in your use of the image in the original essay that Tradition functions to freeze Christianity in the past. Thus, we cannot even discuss ordaining women.
I would argue that many words and deeds of Jesus suggest he included women in ministry, and it is clear he did not intend ONLY the Twelve as ministers. He sent out 72 in Luke 10:1, and Saint Paul is called an Apostle even though he is not one of the Twelve! Thus, it is very interesting that a woman also is called an Apostle (Rom 16:7).
Perhaps, under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, we are asking questions today that bring to fruition a seed planted in the first century - an apparent or "accidental" change that does not mean a departure form Tradition as a whole, even if it does mean a challenge to those in seats of authority.
But I stray by getting into the specifics of a particular off-topic debate.
My point is that since we know Tradtion develops far beyond its original expression, and even appears to change, we cannot view Tradition as something to blindly adhere to...something apart form us that we "obey".
Rather, Tradition is a living reality of being part of a particular community that dialogues with Scripture in continuity with the conversation started by our ancestors in faith.
Obedience is not measured by our willingeness to to simply follow orders.
Rather, obedience is measured by our faithfulness to the community....our desire to remain in the conversation....our openess to hearing one another and listening to one another...our willingess to appeal to the heart and mind in making our point, rather than appealing to status, power, and position....our desire to practice what we preach.
Understood this way, the authority of the Catholic Church lies not in the fact that some beliefs or practices are ancient (though some are). Rather, our "authority" is like that of the Master. It comes from the ability of our words and deeds to reach the hearts and minds of other people and draw them into our community. If all we do is appeal to position (i.e. - the Pope said so), we are not being authentically Catholic, and we are not speaking with any menaingful authority at all.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Jcecil3,
You wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that if Tradition develops, and even changes, we cannot view those who question Tradition as "disobedient".
Are those who question Scripture disobedient? Would you question Scripture? If we cannot question Scripture, yet can question Tradition then we have reduced Tradition to a level below that of Scripture. We only need an affirmation that we judge Tradition's validity solely on the basis of Scripture and then we will have the Protestant position.
1) People who question Tradtition may be on the cutting edge of the next development under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The point to Tradition itself as "authority" implies the static image I was referring to, which is reinforced in the manner the image of lens is used.
2) While "lens" may be a useful image, I am picking up in your use of the image in the original essay that Tradition functions to freeze Christianity in the past. Thus, we cannot even discuss ordaining women.
I simply disagree that I am freezing Christianity in the past. I've indicated that I accept the development of doctrine. I agree that my essay focused on obediance and authority, but so what? Essays and articles should be focused.
If we find that the Church is wrong on the ordination of women, could we not doubt that the Church was wrong about Arianism? Perhaps Arius was on the cutting edge of the next development under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The point is that the Church relied on the authority of Tradition (it could not rely on Scripture to prove the Trinity).
The point of my essay is that obedience and authority are tied together. It's all fine to say that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, but without Tradition I've got no guide at all to judge whether some bloke down the street -- who also claims the Holy Spirit -- is correct. At that point we just become political factions with no way to arrive at Truth.
If Our Lord Jesus were here today, would you disobey? If St. Peter were here, would you disobey? At which point did the Apostolic chain of succession break down?
My point is not blind obedience as you suggest. If Pope JPII called on me to jump off a cliff, I would not feel compelled to obey because such a command exceeded the bounds of his authority as established by Scripture and Tradition. Thus, even JPII must obey to have authority.
So far, everything you've written has suggested that you would not completely obey Tradition. In fact, I have no indication that you would "obey" any part of Tradition that you happened to disagree with, so really obedience is the wrong word in discussing your relationship to Tradition. So left with the choice of your teaching and that of the Magisterium, it seems obvious to me which I should choose.
So we arrive at the nexus of the matter. I agree that we disagree. I appreciate your efforts to teach me, but I have to ask by what authority do you presume to teach?
Peace be with you,
Bob