Scripture and Tradition in the Catholic Church
In the first years of the seventeenth century, my fellow Scot, John Colville (1542-1605) attempted to somewhat colourfully elucidate and elaborate the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Scripture and the Church: “It cannot be denied that the Church is to Scripture as the pilot to the rudder, the mason to the line, the magistrate to the laws…..Even so, the rudder and compass, the line and square of Holy Scripture and laws contained therein, except they have the Church to be their steerman, mason and judge, they of themselves ever pacify parties contending in faith and religion, more nor the compass alone guide the ship, or the line build the house”[1].
Underlying Colville’s rather creative use of analogy was a profound appreciation of the mutual interdependence and co-penetration of Scripture and the Church. For Colvile, Scripture and Tradition, far from being two sections of the deposit of revelation, constitute one single whole, which is the Church’s expression and handing down of the Gospel. Scripture cannot be understood apart from Tradition, for it embodies the Tradition of the Apostolic Church, and its reading needs to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the Church, as manifested in the ecclesiastical documents of the post – apostolic tradition. Somewhat lamentably, Colville’s succinct and eminently sensible approach to he problem of the relationship between Scripture was not shared by the theological heavy weights of counter reformation theology. Following an erroneous yet practically normative interpretation of the Tridentine teaching on the connection between Scripture and Tradition, theologians such as Perez de Ayala, Pete Canisius and Robert Bellarmine asserted that the saving gospel is contained partly in the Scriptures and partly in oral traditions. While this postulation of two quasi-independent sources of revelation was undoubtedly undertaken, as Beumer rightly notes, to counteract Protestantism’s radical emphasis on the centrality of Scripture it did, nevertheless, serve to create something of a dichotomy, some semblance of disjunction at the very kernel of God’s revelatory activity.
As Fisichella correctly asserts[2], Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of the Assumption compelled theologians to begin to ask these basic questions again: How are Scripture and Tradition related? What is their function and role in the community of believers?
What is the distinctive content of each in terms of revelation? Is the content the same, different or complementary? Various solutions were proposed to these questions. In a series of articles in Gregorianum, H.Lennerz vigorously defended the theory espoused by de Ayala, Canisius and Bellarmine that there is a certain duality at the very epicentre of the gospel. Theologians, equally erudite proposed that divine revelation was contained entirely in tradition and entirely in the Scriptures. Their position was given historical support in the study of Geiselmannof Tubinngen, Dei Heilige Schrift und dei Tradition (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1962). He and a host of German theologians contended that the whole revealed deposit is contained in the scriptures. Far from being a rather veiled adoption of sola scrittura, their argument for the material sufficiency of Scripture simply means that all truths pertaining to divine revelatory activity are at least implicit or find some basis in Scripture. A third theological theory, intermediate between the previous two, asserts that is essential that Scripture and tradition be harmonized and unified without mutual detriment. Drawing on the works of Mohler and Scheeben, Beumer attempted to develop and formulate the theory that Scripture is relatively sufficient as a mode of transmission other than tradition. For Beumer, Scripture transmits in a written form not a part but the substance of revealed truth, so that all revealed truths are somehow traceable to its content. According to this theory, Scripture and tradition link, as it were, into concentric circles, tradition encompassing all that Scripture holds substantially. Tradition interprets Scripture and is likewise a more complete expression of the life and teaching of the Church.
The reason for their correlation is that whenever the Church confronts the the Biblical text, she finds true and unequivocable understanding of it only in light of her tradition and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Without a living tradition, the Bible lends itself to a variety of interpretations, not a few of which appear contradictory. Tradition is a helpmate to Scripture: in its interpretive role it help to determine the contents of the contents of the apostolic deposit: Irenaeus, Cyprian and Origen are empathetic iin their teaching that Scripture should be read in the Church and that ecclesial tradition is the exposition of the Scriptures.
Aware of Fisichella’s somewhat axiomatic assertion that that these three theories were all clearly present in the composition of the first draft and successive redactions of Dei Verbum[3], it is perhaps incumbent upon the humble student of Fundamental Theologyto see if this is indeed the case. The somewhat notorious De Fontibus is certainly exemplifies what might be termed the theory of Scriptural insufficiency. With its stipulation of two sources of revelation each containing fragments of revealed truth, one finds here perhaps the zenith of the erroneous position expounded by de Ayala, Canisius and Bellarmine. Moreover, in De Fontibus one hear echoes of the Holy Office votum with its somewhat strange notion of additive tradition.
One encounters in the texts of the Secreteriat for Christian Unity, De Verbo Dei and De Traditione et Sacra Scrittura, an evident endorsement of the theory of the material sufficiency of Scripture. The main argument in both the De Verbo Dei and De Traditione et Sacra Scrittura was that the question of the material sufficiency of the Scriptures was still a subject of legitimate debate among Catholic theologians and the Council should not say anything that would prematurely settle the issue.
The preference of the Secreteriat for Christian Unity for the theory of the material sufficiency was shared, somewhat unsurprisingly by the Pontifical Biblical Institute. In its votum the Institute had suggested that any exploration of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition should recognise the fact that we encounter the Apostolic tradition, most directly in Sacred Scripture than in the posterior ecclesial traditions.The draft prepared by Rahner and Ratzinger, De Revelatione Dei et hominis in Jesu Christo facta appears to adopt the theory of relative sufficiency. Their emphasis on the need of Scripture to be taught and explained by the Scripture seems to proximate towards the position formulated and developed by Beumer. This would also appear to be position adopted by Congar. The Textus Prior although consciously avoiding such formulations seems at times to proximate towards a position of material sufficiency. Dei Verbum did not remain totally silent on this question. Rather it provided a new imposition of the problem. In its understanding the problem is not the Scripture – Tradition relationship but rather how Scripture relates to the Church’s living tradition.
[1] G.H Tavard,, “Scripture and Tradition among Seventeenth Century Recusants”, Theological Studies 1964, p.345.
[2] R. Fisichella, “Dei Verbum Audiens et Proclamamams: On Scripture and Tradition as Source of the Word of God”, Communio 2001, p.87.
[3] Ibid.
In the first years of the seventeenth century, my fellow Scot, John Colville (1542-1605) attempted to somewhat colourfully elucidate and elaborate the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Scripture and the Church: “It cannot be denied that the Church is to Scripture as the pilot to the rudder, the mason to the line, the magistrate to the laws…..Even so, the rudder and compass, the line and square of Holy Scripture and laws contained therein, except they have the Church to be their steerman, mason and judge, they of themselves ever pacify parties contending in faith and religion, more nor the compass alone guide the ship, or the line build the house”[1].
Underlying Colville’s rather creative use of analogy was a profound appreciation of the mutual interdependence and co-penetration of Scripture and the Church. For Colvile, Scripture and Tradition, far from being two sections of the deposit of revelation, constitute one single whole, which is the Church’s expression and handing down of the Gospel. Scripture cannot be understood apart from Tradition, for it embodies the Tradition of the Apostolic Church, and its reading needs to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the Church, as manifested in the ecclesiastical documents of the post – apostolic tradition. Somewhat lamentably, Colville’s succinct and eminently sensible approach to he problem of the relationship between Scripture was not shared by the theological heavy weights of counter reformation theology. Following an erroneous yet practically normative interpretation of the Tridentine teaching on the connection between Scripture and Tradition, theologians such as Perez de Ayala, Pete Canisius and Robert Bellarmine asserted that the saving gospel is contained partly in the Scriptures and partly in oral traditions. While this postulation of two quasi-independent sources of revelation was undoubtedly undertaken, as Beumer rightly notes, to counteract Protestantism’s radical emphasis on the centrality of Scripture it did, nevertheless, serve to create something of a dichotomy, some semblance of disjunction at the very kernel of God’s revelatory activity.
As Fisichella correctly asserts[2], Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of the Assumption compelled theologians to begin to ask these basic questions again: How are Scripture and Tradition related? What is their function and role in the community of believers?
What is the distinctive content of each in terms of revelation? Is the content the same, different or complementary? Various solutions were proposed to these questions. In a series of articles in Gregorianum, H.Lennerz vigorously defended the theory espoused by de Ayala, Canisius and Bellarmine that there is a certain duality at the very epicentre of the gospel. Theologians, equally erudite proposed that divine revelation was contained entirely in tradition and entirely in the Scriptures. Their position was given historical support in the study of Geiselmannof Tubinngen, Dei Heilige Schrift und dei Tradition (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1962). He and a host of German theologians contended that the whole revealed deposit is contained in the scriptures. Far from being a rather veiled adoption of sola scrittura, their argument for the material sufficiency of Scripture simply means that all truths pertaining to divine revelatory activity are at least implicit or find some basis in Scripture. A third theological theory, intermediate between the previous two, asserts that is essential that Scripture and tradition be harmonized and unified without mutual detriment. Drawing on the works of Mohler and Scheeben, Beumer attempted to develop and formulate the theory that Scripture is relatively sufficient as a mode of transmission other than tradition. For Beumer, Scripture transmits in a written form not a part but the substance of revealed truth, so that all revealed truths are somehow traceable to its content. According to this theory, Scripture and tradition link, as it were, into concentric circles, tradition encompassing all that Scripture holds substantially. Tradition interprets Scripture and is likewise a more complete expression of the life and teaching of the Church.
The reason for their correlation is that whenever the Church confronts the the Biblical text, she finds true and unequivocable understanding of it only in light of her tradition and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Without a living tradition, the Bible lends itself to a variety of interpretations, not a few of which appear contradictory. Tradition is a helpmate to Scripture: in its interpretive role it help to determine the contents of the contents of the apostolic deposit: Irenaeus, Cyprian and Origen are empathetic iin their teaching that Scripture should be read in the Church and that ecclesial tradition is the exposition of the Scriptures.
Aware of Fisichella’s somewhat axiomatic assertion that that these three theories were all clearly present in the composition of the first draft and successive redactions of Dei Verbum[3], it is perhaps incumbent upon the humble student of Fundamental Theologyto see if this is indeed the case. The somewhat notorious De Fontibus is certainly exemplifies what might be termed the theory of Scriptural insufficiency. With its stipulation of two sources of revelation each containing fragments of revealed truth, one finds here perhaps the zenith of the erroneous position expounded by de Ayala, Canisius and Bellarmine. Moreover, in De Fontibus one hear echoes of the Holy Office votum with its somewhat strange notion of additive tradition.
One encounters in the texts of the Secreteriat for Christian Unity, De Verbo Dei and De Traditione et Sacra Scrittura, an evident endorsement of the theory of the material sufficiency of Scripture. The main argument in both the De Verbo Dei and De Traditione et Sacra Scrittura was that the question of the material sufficiency of the Scriptures was still a subject of legitimate debate among Catholic theologians and the Council should not say anything that would prematurely settle the issue.
The preference of the Secreteriat for Christian Unity for the theory of the material sufficiency was shared, somewhat unsurprisingly by the Pontifical Biblical Institute. In its votum the Institute had suggested that any exploration of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition should recognise the fact that we encounter the Apostolic tradition, most directly in Sacred Scripture than in the posterior ecclesial traditions.The draft prepared by Rahner and Ratzinger, De Revelatione Dei et hominis in Jesu Christo facta appears to adopt the theory of relative sufficiency. Their emphasis on the need of Scripture to be taught and explained by the Scripture seems to proximate towards the position formulated and developed by Beumer. This would also appear to be position adopted by Congar. The Textus Prior although consciously avoiding such formulations seems at times to proximate towards a position of material sufficiency. Dei Verbum did not remain totally silent on this question. Rather it provided a new imposition of the problem. In its understanding the problem is not the Scripture – Tradition relationship but rather how Scripture relates to the Church’s living tradition.
[1] G.H Tavard,, “Scripture and Tradition among Seventeenth Century Recusants”, Theological Studies 1964, p.345.
[2] R. Fisichella, “Dei Verbum Audiens et Proclamamams: On Scripture and Tradition as Source of the Word of God”, Communio 2001, p.87.
[3] Ibid.
Comments