Credo Ut Intelligam

Scriptura et Traditio: a dialogue fragment

The following fictional dialogue represents my attempts to crystallize the hermeneutical issue that divides me from Rome. I think many of the same things could be said, mutatis mutandis, regarding Eastern Orthodoxy; and much of what I say will be a reflection of Kevin's discussion of sola scriptura with Clifton; but, as you will see, I want to approach it in a different way. My character, Thomas, speaks for Rome rather than Byzantium because I know Rome a bit better, and am more likely to give her a fair representation. That being said, corrections are welcome from Roman Catholics, who, of course, know their own tradition better than I do.

THOMAS: I can understand, and agree with, your desire to have theology rooted in Scripture. What I don't understand is the idea that the interpretation of Scripture should be ultimately up to the individual, placing each Christian's own interpretation over the consensus fidelium. Surely such a doctrine is destructive of the unity of the Church. Can you explain to me why you think this is the right way to interpret Scripture?

JOHN: I'm afraid I can't.

THOMAS: Um, ... why not?

JOHN: Because that's not what I believe.

THOMAS: Oh, well I guess I did describe the doctrine in a negative way, not as you would. But you do believe in sola scriptura, don't you?

JOHN: No.

THOMAS: What? Do you then believe, as I do, that we are not permitted to depart from Holy Tradition?

JOHN: Yes, I agree with you there.

THOMAS: Do you believe that the Church is infallible?

JOHN: Yes, I believe that too.

THOMAS: Have you undergone a conversion since last we spoke? For I know that you used to hold beliefs that were quite contrary to the teaching of the Church.

JOHN: You know no such thing. I remain a Protestant. Our protest is not against the Church but against some of her officers, principally the bishop of Rome. But let me ask you a question: if, as we agree, the Church is infallible, who speaks for the church? Priests?

THOMAS: Well, yes. That's part of their job: to convey the content of Tradition to the laity.

JOHN: But you don't hold that everything a priest says is infallible, right?

THOMAS: Right: I don't hold that. Just because a priest says that something is the teaching of the Church doesn't mean it is. Priests are supposed to be faithful in that, but they aren't always, and sometimes they just make mistakes.

JOHN: So can we agree that, whether we call them priests or presbyters, they transmit fallibly an infallible Tradition.

THOMAS: Yes, I think that captures it. But when all the Bishops of the church agree in ecumenical council, or when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, that's a different story.

JOHN: So our disagreement concerns the question: Which officers of the church can speak for the church officially, in the sense that their teaching defines the Church's position.

THOMAS: Which officers do you think play that role?

JOHN: The Apostles.

THOMAS: But the Apostle's aren't here. Their Tradition must be transmitted to us. Of course, it is transmitted in Scripture, but Scripture needs to be interpreted, and I think I already heard you reject sola scriptura.

JOHN: Yes, that's right: I do reject sola scriptura. The Apostolic teaching was entrusted to the Church, and she is to hand it on as her Tradition. It was written down to help her in this, not so it could be interpreted by individuals apart from that Tradition. Tradition is the natural home of Scripture and it cannot be properly interpreted apart from that. But let me ask you another question: do you make a distinction between Apostolic Tradition, and traditions that have grown up within the Church that are not infallible?

THOMAS: Yes, there is such a distinction.

JOHN: So, if a particular tradition is not of Apostolic origin, we should not regard it as infallible.

THOMAS: I'm not sure what you mean by "Apostolic origin". There is such a thing as development of doctrine. I agree that the only infallible tradition in the church is that founded by the Apostles, but the foundation is not the whole house. Not that the Apostles were inadequate for their time, but Christians face different problems (as well as some of the same problems) now. The Church must speak to those problems, not de novo, but in a way that is rooted in the Apostolic teaching, and grows organically out of it.

JOHN: While we might disagree somewhat on what sort of development is appropriate, I certainly agree that the Church needs to speak to contemporary issues, and needs to do so in a way that is rooted in and grows out of the Apostolic foundation. It's not just a matter of repeating what they said and finding out how it was understood in its original context. That's important, but not the whole story.

THOMAS: You seem to be in a strange half-way house between Protestant and Catholic beliefs about the Church and her Tradition. Can you remind me again what in Catholic teaching you agree with and what you don't.

JOHN: I agree entirely with genuinely catholic doctrine of the church, as I understand it. But I presume the question you wished me to answer was: Where do I disagree with Rome?

THOMAS: Indeed, you have begun to answer it.

JOHN: Whereas Rome holds that the infallible Apostolic Tradition was entrusted to an infallible episcopacy, I hold that the infallible Apostolic Tradition was entrusted to a fallible episcopacy. (and I would identify episcopacy with presbytery, but that's a bit of a tangent.) Thus, whenever a question arises whether a given tradition is Apostolic in origin, and thus infallible, the only way to answer that question is to examine the tradition, look at its history, and, most importantly, compare it to the one thing that conveys the infallible Apostolic Tradition infallibly: Holy Scripture.

THOMAS: This sounds like sola scriptura to me.

JOHN: As a matter of fact, I think it is in line with what the Reformers meant by "sola scriptura", but, nowadays, most people think it means: Tradition is not infallible; the Church is not infallible; and the individual conscience is the final court of appeal, in this life, for questions of scriptural interpretation. I don't accept any of those things. That's why I said I don't believe in sola scriptura. I want to emphasize our agreement with Rome, and our disagreement with the Anabaptists and their heirs, whereas the Reformers put the emphasis the other way 'round. These days, Rome is a bit more encouraging than she used to be when it comes to laymen studying Scripture, and I think the Anabaptist error is a bigger problem for the Church today.

THOMAS: But it seems to me that your position in practice amounts to pretty much the same thing as the Anabaptist position. If the episcopacy to which infallible Tradition was entrusted cannot convey it infallibly, then it's ultimately up to the individual to distinguish Tradition from tradition, and the individual has to do that by interpreting Scripture apart from Tradition. He can't interpret from within Tradition, because, on your view, he has no way of knowing what Apostolic Tradition is, prior to his interpretation of Scripture. So it sounds like you are simply adding the label "Tradition" to the result of your individualistic interpretation.

JOHN: There is a world of difference between the Anabaptist position and mine. I do not envisage the individual interpreting Scripture apart from tradition. And we can know what Tradition is on the basis of a fallible transmission. We can't know it infallibly on that basis, but we can't know anything infallibly. All we need for knowledge is reliable, not infallible. I envisage the Church engaged in a hermeneutical circle. She begins with her tradition as she knows it, and with Scripture as she understands it. From within this standpoint she seeks to better understand the Apostolic teaching, interpreting Scripture from within tradition, and subjecting her tradition to critique on this basis, purging it from unApostolic accretions. It's a dynamic process, which every Christian is involved in, and which the episcopacy oversees. At no point is the individual interpreting apart from tradition. Notice what I said: "when the question arises," whether a given tradition is of Apostolic origin, one consults Scripture. Such questions arise within the context of a self-critical tradition in a hermeneutic circle. That's my position. By contrast, the Anabaptist position either ignores the hermeneutic circle altogether, or else enjoins the individual to enter the circle with his own first reading, regardless of tradition; the ideas of other Christians, living or dead, are, at most, sage advice.

THOMAS: OK, I can see how those are different, in theory at least. But I don't see how you can say that the episcopacy oversees the process. How can the episcopacy do this in any authoritative manner if it is just as fallible as each individual Christian?

JOHN: It might help you to understand my position if you consider your own view of what goes on when an ordinary priest helps a layman to understand Scripture and Tradition. Suppose the priest gets it wrong, and the layman discovers this, say, by reading a papal proclamation himself. Surely the layman should bring this to the attention of the priest. It's possible the layman misunderstood the pope, so he should listen submissively. The priest is in authority over him. But it's also possible the priest is wrong, which means the priest's authority is not absolute. Well, I think laymen are in something like that situation with regard to every post-Apostolic officer of the church.

THOMAS: But the priest's oversight can only work because the priest is himself overseen by an infallible episcopacy. I mean, this disagreement between priest and layman can be settled, if it comes to that, definitively, by higher authorities.

JOHN: And that's where the analogy breaks down. While, on my view, the Holy Spirit is at work, guiding the church into all truth, His relationship to the fallible episcopacy is not like the way your infallible episcopacy relates to its priests.

THOMAS: Ah, so you admit that our episcopacy is infallible!

JOHN: No, that was just a manner of speaking.

THOMAS: I know, I was joking with you. But in all seriousness, this conversation began with me asking you to explain why you hold to sola scriptura. Now that you've explained what your view is, can you explain why you hold it?

JOHN: Yes. And since my view is partly in agreement with yours, I'll give my reasons for the part we disagree about, which is ...

THOMAS: Was Holy Tradition entrusted to a fallible or an infallible episcopacy?

JOHN: Precisely. Now, it would be question-begging for me to presuppose that there is no infallible episcopacy, just as it would be question-begging for you to presuppose that there is.

THOMAS: But the doctrine of an infallible episcopacy is part of tradition, which you say you start with.

JOHN: It's part of the tradition of your branch of Christendom, my branch has a different tradition. The question then arises, who's right?

THOMAS: But didn't your tradition originate in Martin Luther's individual interpretation, in opposition to tradition?

JOHN: I don't believe it did. I think Luther was engaged in precisely the kind of project I outlined above: it was a self-criticism of tradition in a hermeneutic circle with Scripture.

THOMAS: But how do you justify that project? I mean, there is much in it that I agree with, but how do you justify that aspect of it that conflicts with prior tradition?

JOHN: Do you agree that if there is no infallible episcopacy, the only way Tradition can operate is as I described?

THOMAS: Let's see, that's a conditional statement: "If there is no infallible episcopacy ..." Since I think there is an infallible episcopacy it's kind of hard to say how things would be if there weren't. I suppose if there were no infallible episcopacy then Tradition couldn't operate at all.

JOHN: But what I'm trying to get at is this: if we can answer the question of whether there is an infallible episcopacy, then what we both agree upon concerning Tradition is enough to give us something like what I described. There could be details to be ironed out, but if you're going to subscribe to a high view of tradition without an infallible episcopacy, you're going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of what I described. To put it another way, my view is about as high a view of tradition as could possibly be retained without an infallible episcopacy.

THOMAS: I'm not sure your view is really a very high view of tradition; I'm not convinced that, carried to its logical conclusion, it's all that much different from the Anabaptist view, in practice. But I'll grant that it might be. And I take your point: settling the question of whether there is an infallible episcopacy would settle the question of hermeneutic method. But I'm not sure how you can settle the former without presupposing a hermeneutic method.

JOHN: I can't. That's the hermeneutic circle. Which is not at all a vicious circle. I'm not presupposing that there isn't an infallible episcopacy, I'm simply not presupposing that there is. Because it is in question whether that doctrine is the teaching of the Church.

THOMAS: I have the feeling that "not presupposing an infallible episcopacy" is going to involve a hermeneutics indistinguishable from what you would have if you presupposed the absence of an infallible episcopacy.

JOHN: In practice, yes. Because, in our discussion, the only hermeneutic principles we can use are those we agree upon. I'm not assuming there couldn't be other valid principles, but such principles cannot be used without begging the question, so long as they are in dispute.

THOMAS: But isn't relying on a hermeneutic stripped of those principles just as question-begging as using them?

JOHN: Not at all. It's certainly possible that, using only methods we agree upon, we will discover that there is an infallible episcopacy, at which point other methods become available. There's nothing question-begging about that.

THOMAS: So we are starting with ...

JOHN: only what we both believe to be genuine Tradition, true to its Apostolic origin: those great ecumenical doctrines that the Reformers and their opponents agreed upon. We cannot rely upon those things about which our traditions differ. So you cannot rely upon your church's interpretation of scripture, except where that agrees with what the Reformed churches say. And I cannot rely upon my tradition either. Both of us have to argue for it using only what we agree upon.

...

Here I am in doubt as to whether Thomas can consent to this. What is Rome's position here? Does Rome have a position on this? Can the infallibility of the episcopacy be demonstrated from Scripture using only interpretive principles that we Reformed folks agree with? That is, not apart from all Tradition, but apart from those aspects of her t/Tradition that distinguish Rome from us "separated brothers"?

If not, then belief in an infallible episcopacy can only be a basic faith commitment. In which case John, to answer Thomas's question of why he does not share this basic faith commitment, will point to history, and talk about how, at the end of the middle ages, people lost faith in the episcopacy. It was acting in a manner that tended to undermine people's faith in it. Did its bad behavior then -- does its bad behavior now -- prove that it wasn't an infallible teacher? No. But we are not here in the realm of proof, but of basic faith commitments, and faith -- trust -- must be engendered by trustworthiness. If the infallibility of the Roman magisterium is a basic faith commitment, if we are asked to take their word for it that they speak infallibly for Christ, ... well, I can't see my way to trusting them that much. My faith in Christ himself is of an utterly different character: by his life he showed himself to be entirely trustworthy.

This is what must be said if faith in the infallibility of the episcopacy -- as teacher -- cannot be derived from Scripture using only what we all agree upon. If it can, then there is no need to regard it as a basic faith commitment. It will be a faith comitment resting upon faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit. It will be faith that Jesus was true to his word when he established his Church as an institution with an infallible episcopacy. The belief that Christ in fact did that will not be based upon a prior trust in the episcopacy that says he did (saying that these passage are to be interpreted thus). Rather, it will be the other way around.

I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic brother who was able to give a convincing demonstration of this. In my experience, the exegetical debate always comes down to "This is how the Roman Catholic church interprets it, and it is not right to interpret Scripture apart from Tradition," at which point begins something like the above discussion on the proper role of t/Tradition in interpreting Scripture, a discussion that really needs to be settled before the exegetical debate can be fruitfully entered into.

At the end of the day, I think the Roman Catholic believer must face this dilemma: either a basic faith commitment to the Roman communion (and, sorry, but I don't trust your bishops that much); or else prove it using hermeneutic principles a Protestant can agree with (that is, a Protestant who respects ecumenical tradition, but not Rome's distinctives).

Sans the assumption of Rome's infallibility, Reformed exegesis seems more convincing to me.

Posted by mccartney at December 23, 2006 12:16 AM | TrackBack