In the year 2000 I joined the Catholic church. I became a
somewhat conservative Catholic, one who submitted with his intellect to the
magisterium of the church. However, in the past few years, I have rethought
much of that submission. Don’t misunderstand me- I remain Catholic in many of
my core beliefs- that the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary, that the Eucharist
is the body and blood of Christ, traditional Catholic Christology, etc. I go to
Mass, try to go to daily Mass, say the rosary, go to a priest for spiritual
direction and confession, believe that abortion should be illegal, I believe
strongly in Catholic spirituality, loving to read St. Bernard, or either of the
two St. Theresas. I believe strongly in sacramental theology, especially as
developed by the scholastics. I believe Jesus rose from the dead, and
everything in the Nicene Creed. I remain in the Catholic church.
According to Vatican II, the three pillars of the faith are
Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. What is a good example of Tradition?
Most Catholics would point to the Marian dogmas. I do not question the first
Marian dogma, that Mary is the Mother of God. This is really a point of sound
Christology as much as it is Mariology. But I highly doubt the other three
dogmas. They have no basis in Scripture or sound philosophy.
If there are Catholic extraBiblical traditions, the
perpetual virginity of Mary has a claim to be such a tradition if anything
does. This was notably defined by the Church in approving the doctrine of St
Jerome in his debate with Jovinian. But I believe St. Jerome was wrong. Scripture
clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, which basic logic would
conclude were the children of Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. The
perpetual virginity of Mary was really tied to a misinterpretation of 1st
Corinthian’s supposed teaching that virginity is superior to marriage. But as
Joseph Fitzmyer points out in his commentary on First Corinthians, Paul says
that virginity or marriage has more to do with vocation than one way of life
supposedly being superior to another.
Do I believe in Sola Scriptura, since tradition is clearly wrong
about at least one thing? Just because tradition is wrong about the perpetual
virginity of Mary doesn’t mean it couldn’t be right about almost everything
else. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible nowhere teaches it. I
am not sure if that makes it self-referentially incoherent. Jesus in Matthew’s
gospel clearly seems to reject the Pharisee’s claim to have an oral tradition
going back to Moses- his rejection of the korban rule which is such a
tradition- so it seems unbiblical to suppose that there is such tradition in
Christianity. But is the authority of Scripture without tradition sola
scriptura? It might be. Another problem is that the canon of Scripture itself
comes from tradition- or at least did historically. I am highly skeptical of “I
get a burning in the bosom when I read Romans, but not First Clement,” as a
basis for the canon. But could the canon be a point of faith which needs no
historical proof? Sort of a properly basic belief? It could, but for too many
reasons to mention in this already long blog, I am not fond of reformed
epistemology, but not sure how else one would flesh out such an idea.
Can the idea of Biblical tradition be retained, a sort of
fleshing out what is contained implicitly in Scripture? Are the Christological
dogmas an example of such fleshing out? What else would be?
The ever-virginity of the Blessed Mother of God is not merely based on extra-biblical tradition, but also upon sound Mosaic law as taught repeatedly by Christ: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery," (Mat 5:32). If Mary were the spouse of the Holy Ghost, then how could she possibly also be the spouse of a mortal? It is almost blasphemous to think of it.
ReplyDeleteAll of this seems to spring, however, from an underlying loss of faith in the magisterium of the Church. You seem to be floundering for a foundation on which to base the authority of Scripture and Tradition, but this foundation is the Church. You are correct in the fact that Sola Scriptura with its "burning bosom" epistemology is devoid of reason and truth; however, your simultaneous abandonment of Scriptural and ecclesiastical infallibility leave you with nothing but your own imagination as the rule of truth.
St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly denies this, however, and explains that the rule of faith is of Divine, not human, origin: "Hence it is not human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the rule of faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think that the learned believe aright; unless the simple hold obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said (Luke 22:32): 'I have prayed for thee,' Peter, 'that thy faith fail not,'" (Summa II-II:2:6).
Aquinas continues, "Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God... It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: 'The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee' (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation," (Summa I:I:I).
Scripture is divinely revealed truth which surpasses human reason; therefore, it cannot be "wrong" as you suppose. Neither can this truth be taken in any sense which we please but only in that sense which was handed down from Christ by the apostles from generation to generation of the Faithful: "Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received..." (I Corinthians). This rule of faith has not been preserved only by human philosophy but by divine grace as contained in the inerrant Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I am offended by your comment; I will not reply to it.
ReplyDelete