Poll on tradition- Catholics too, but especially non-Catholics.

[cooterhein]

Each of those non-Catholic Christians would vote a different way–some probably are different today than when I first dialogued with them, depending upon the church they currently belong.

Again, how would I choose one of them? And why would I choose one over the other?

You don’t choose just one of them. You assess the group as a whole and predict how most of them will vote.

Have you voted yet? If so, which one did you select?

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t choose just one of them. You assess the group as a whole and predict how most of them will vote.

LOL! The group “as a whole” does not exist “as a whole”.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL! The group “as a whole” does not exist “as a whole”.

So here’s an analogy for you, cooterhein:

Imagine a ship that was once whole, and sailing towards paradise, but, sadly, had a large chunk splinter off. This chunk has splintered into a thousand pieces, floating in the ocean. And you’re grabbing 5 of these teeny splinters and asking, “Now, PR, tell me where these belong!”

:whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

So here’s an analogy for you, cooterhein:

Imagine a ship that was once whole, and sailing towards paradise, but, sadly, had a large chunk splinter off. This chunk has splintered into a thousand pieces, floating in the ocean. And you’re grabbing 5 of these teeny splinters and asking, “Now, PR, tell me where these belong!”

:whacky:

Oohh! And I love this analogy! I want to add that, thankfully, the original ship still has the Captain and co-captain and crew to serve and lead!

 

[cooterhein]

So here’s an analogy for you, cooterhein:

I doubt that this poll will get 1,000 votes, even with all the Catholic voters included, but for the sake of analogy, let’s say there are 1,000 pieces of wood in the ocean.

At this point, I get to ask the question. I made the thread, I made the poll, and I ask the question. You are not the one asking the question. You answer it.

There’s a huge number of questions that would work with this analogy, but let’s make it a “Will it float?” kind of question. Will most of the wood splinters float and be swept along by the current, or will most of them sink to the bottom? Best of all, in the same poll, the splinters are actually telling you whether or not they float. So while it’s limited to the non-Catholics who use CAF, you can at least find out if most non-Catholics on CAF float or sink. Even if you aren’t completely certain of what the answer actually is, there is an answer to it. With enough participation, we can find out what it is.

That’s already more of an explanation than is reasonably necessary. If you are still unsatisfied with what I did, you don’t have to fully participate. Or you can do something of your own that’s a little different. Or something that’s a lot different. Whatever you want, really.

Did you vote yet?

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt that this poll will get 1,000 votes, even with all the Catholic voters included, but for the sake of analogy, let’s say there are 1,000 pieces of wood in the ocean.

At this point, I get to ask the question. I made the thread, I made the poll, and I ask the question. You are not the one asking the question. You answer it.

There’s a huge number of questions that would work with this analogy, but let’s make it a “Will it float?” kind of question. Will most of the wood splinters float and be swept along by the current, or will most of them sink to the bottom? Best of all, in the same poll, the splinters are actually telling you whether or not they float. So while it’s limited to the non-Catholics who use CAF, you can at least find out if most non-Catholics on CAF float or sink. Even if you aren’t completely certain of what the answer actually is, there is an answer to it. With enough participation, we can find out what it is.

That’s already more of an explanation than is reasonably necessary. If you are still unsatisfied with what I did, you don’t have to fully participate. Or you can do something of your own that’s a little different. Or something that’s a lot different. Whatever you want, really.

Did you vote yet?

cooterhein, you disappoint.

I was fully expecting…here’s the windup…

<swing!> “Sorry, PR, I don’t do nautical analogies.”

You missed your chance!

*<strike out!> *

 

[PRmerger]

Did you vote yet?

Oh, all* right. *


There. I voted.

 

[cooterhein]

cooterhein, you disappoint.

I was fully expecting…here’s the windup…

<swing!> “Sorry, PR, I don’t do nautical analogies.”

You missed your chance!

*<strike out!> *

I tend to like analogies. I do most of them. There are some that require participation with tongue firmly in cheek, but even then, I can usually do it.

For example, I think I enjoy Twilight analogies more than I really should. It’s not always football and politics.

 

[cooterhein]

It just occurred to me that there’s a total of maybe 6 people who know what we’re talking about.

 

[simspt]

For the non-Catholics. Do you reject some Catholic teaching (or any teaching, for that matter) solely on the basis of “It’s tradition, tradition is bad”?

For the Catholics. What do you think most of the CAF Protestants will choose?

I think the contents of the NT were determined by the church based on tradition. For example the tradition of ecclesiastical usage, traditional ideas of authorship, traditional formulations of the faith etc. Tradition gave birth to the NT canon. When one acknowledges the authority of the canon one must acknowledge the authority of tradition, one cannot have one without the other. I think the distinction between Scripture and tradition becomes even less when looking for example at the Gospels as being products of tradition if you accept form criticism. Another early example of tradition would be the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke. Historically, tradition precedes scripture and is found in scripture. Later on, the exegetical, liturgical, kerygmatic traditions provided a dynamic context that IMO makes it hard to see how either scripture or tradition could function separately within the ancient church. Proper interpretation of scripture was always a function of church tradition. This has led me to find it difficult to accept the legitimacy of interpretations of Christianity that are not rooted in continuity with early church tradition. I don’t think most of the CA Forum Protestants will reject tradition all together only Catholic tradition that contradicts their church’s tradition of interpretation.

 

[cooterhein]

I think the contents of the NT were determined by the church based on tradition. For example the tradition of ecclesiastical usage, traditional ideas of authorship, traditional formulations of the faith etc. Tradition gave birth to the NT canon. When one acknowledges the authority of the canon one must acknowledge the authority of tradition, one cannot have one without the other.

Could you please state the “authority of tradition” rule in its entirety? For example, you start by saying “You acknowledge the authority of tradition when it says this.” And you finish by saying, “Therefore you must…something.” What is the natural conclusion?

And does the rule apply in the same way for all tradition over the course of time? For example…you gave examples. Compare the canon of Scripture and the traditional ideas of authorship. You accept both because you acknowledge the authority of tradition, and yet you can’t really question the inclusion of some books that are in there or the exclusion of ones that aren’t. On the other hand, you can question traditional ideas of authorship and even conclude with a fair amount of certainty that (for example) Hebrews may very well not have been written by Paul, although it took until the Reformation era for any Catholic to start taking that idea seriously. In that comparison, it sure seems like different traditions yield differing levels of assent, and in that particular case, it actually seems like that status of that tradition changed over time. It became possible to seriously question or even reject it when more evidence came to light, and while this was initially discouraged and fought against pretty hard, it eventually became the prevailing way of Catholic scholarship.

Comments on any of this?

 

[StTommyMore]

Could you please state the “authority of tradition” rule in its entirety? For example, you start by saying “You acknowledge the authority of tradition when it says this.” And you finish by saying, “Therefore you must…something.” What is the natural conclusion?

And does the rule apply in the same way for all tradition over the course of time? For example…you gave examples. Compare the canon of Scripture and the traditional ideas of authorship. You accept both because you acknowledge the authority of tradition, and yet you can’t really question the inclusion of some books that are in there or the exclusion of ones that aren’t. On the other hand, you can question traditional ideas of authorship and even conclude with a fair amount of certainty that (for example) Hebrews may very well not have been written by Paul, although it took until the Reformation era for any Catholic to start taking that idea seriously. In that comparison, it sure seems like different traditions yield differing levels of assent, and in that particular case, it actually seems like that status of that tradition changed over time. It became possible to seriously question or even reject it when more evidence came to light, and while this was initially discouraged and fought against pretty hard, it eventually became the prevailing way of Catholic scholarship.

Comments on any of this?

You cannot understand why the Church resisted higher criticism until you understand the motive of the methods when they first appeared: the intent was to destroy any authority contained in the Scriptures. Look at what so-called “higher criticism” has produced: “JEPD,” in an effort to destroy the Old Tetstment. “Q” in an effort to undermine the gospels. Claims that John’s Gospel was written by an “anonymous Jew,” and so on. The Historical Critical method, and other forms of higher criticism, only have value when viewed with a hermeneutic of faith.

 

[simspt]

Could you please state the “authority of tradition” rule in its entirety? For example, you start by saying “You acknowledge the authority of tradition when it says this.” And you finish by saying, “Therefore you must…something.” What is the natural conclusion?

 

[cooterhein]

I do accept the tradition that guided the church, I do this on faith. I think all Christians are dependent on this tradition the church passed on that influenced the exegesis of scripture and the canon itself.

I don’t know how comfortable I am with saying tradition has guided the Church…I do believe the Holy Spirit has guided the Church, and various traditions in different parts of the world at any given time allow us to see the degree to which different people have been faithful to that guidance. The next thing you say makes me think we aren’t all that different, though.

I agree with you, this in addition to the process of development of doctrine leads me to posit that the Spirit has guided the Church and still does. I dont think we should be embarrassed by this since the Paraclete was promised.

There it is. Broadly speaking, I think we can agree that the Holy Spirit guides Christians into all the truth. Whether we add the descriptors of “infallibly” or “only through the Magisterium,” though…we might have some differences there.

I do think tradition has changed over time, it is not static but fluid and at times has been influenced by new insights that not necessarily broke from the past but were faithful to it.

Ok, so for the first…16 centuries or so of Christianity, there’s a half-dozen books of the New Testament whose authorship couldn’t really be proven, but they were traditionally attributed to certain men. The way of knowing this (even for men from what we’d call the ancient Church) was to say “men from of old” have said it was written by “this guy.”

Then we get post-Reformation and Cajetan is at least three centuries ahead of his time in calling the authorship of these books into question. He’s stoutly opposed by Ambrose Catharinus on the basis of being faithful to the authority of tradition. The Catholic Church as a whole, the leadership in particular (and that is the measure of what Catholic tradition officially is at any given time, right?) doesn’t get comfortable with questioning the authorship of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, or Jude until the 19th century.

How is that not a break with the past? Where’s the continuity between “trusting the authority of tradition to know who wrote these books” and “not trusting that authority and saying we don’t know for sure who wrote them”?

What if the Catholic Church “developed” the tradition of the papacy in the same way? For example, you currently take it on tradition that Peter exercised some kind of supreme “last say” authority during his life and that he formally passed the mantle to Linus, who succeeded him and knew that he succeeded Peter because Peter said as much to him. What if the Church began saying we actually can’t know for sure that Peter had any sort of “last say,” and it’s equally probable that Peter never named Linus his successor and neither Linus nor anyone else understood him to be “the successor” of Peter during his lifetime? You can easily claim continuity of tradition by saying “the papacy did not instantly spring from the bosom of the earliest Church fully formed and functional, but developed over time.” Catholic historians can and have said all of this. But- hypothetically- if this becomes the prevailing way of thinking among Church leadership in the next couple of centuries, won’t that be a break with previous teaching, and how would it be any different from the “development” that happened with the authorship of those six books?

On the other hand it is interesting to see the differences in tradition from different areas like the very old tradition of Mary in the East and West in relation to her not having blood siblings. They both agree she did not but have different explanations.

Yes, largely having to do with accepting and rejecting different apocryphal books, right? I remember seeing something about an apocryphal book that was banned in the West while it influenced the tradition of the East, and then the ban was lifted later on and that view became acceptable in the West, although it was never exactly dominant. Is that right? Do you know which book that would have been?

I agree, from what I have read pre WWII there was mistrust by the church due to the irreligious use of historical criticism where rationalism was presupposed. The data wasnt necessarily bad just the intepretation. Eventually Catholic scholars caught up to Protestant scholars once this protective atmosphere decreased.

With the exception of a higher regard for the allegorical method of interpretation, I think Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars (at the really elite level, anyway) are largely doing the same things with interpretation, and I think that’s really good to see. I don’t necessarily assume that Catholic scholars had to catch up to Protestant scholars, although it may have gone one way or the other in different parts of the world. What’s important to me is that we all found our way to roughly the same place, and Christians throughout the world have more similarities in their approach to Scripture than they used to.

 

[simspt]

]I don’t know how comfortable I am with saying tradition has guided the Church…I do believe the Holy Spirit has guided the Church, and various traditions in different parts of the world at any given time allow us to see the degree to which different people have been faithful to that guidance. The next thing you say makes me think we aren’t all that different, though.

By saying tradition guided the church I simply mean that it seems to me that it existed before the NT, is detectable within it and influenced its contents and has been strongly influential in its interpretation ever since. Of course I’m guessing you and I would both agree certain traditions that led to gnostic or docetist beliefs might not have been so faithful.

There it is. Broadly speaking, I think we can agree that the Holy Spirit guides Christians into all the truth. Whether we add the descriptors of “infallibly” or “only through the Magisterium,” though…we might have some differences there.

i agree

Then we get post-Reformation and Cajetan is at least three centuries ahead of his time in calling the authorship of these books into question. He’s stoutly opposed by Ambrose Catharinus on the basis of being faithful to the authority of tradition. The Catholic Church as a whole, the leadership in particular (and that is the measure of what Catholic tradition officially is at any given time, right?) doesn’t get comfortable with questioning the authorship of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, or Jude until the 19th century.

How is that not a break with the past? Where’s the continuity between “trusting the authority of tradition to know who wrote these books” and “not trusting that authority and saying we don’t know for sure who wrote them”?

It seems that this kind of debating within the church has always existed especially before the 4th century with certain NT writings being questioned in relation to their authenticity by the early church. I’m not sure if when the church in the 2nd century who attributed names to the anonymous gospels and accepted a collection of Paul’s writings were aware of the idea that Apostolicity might include the pseudonymous practice of a disciple of the Pauline “school” (or the other NT pseudonymity) considering himself an authoritative interpreter of Paul whose thought he endorsed and whose writing would be received authoritatively. If the later church would have know this would the writings still have been canonized? How are these writings different from the pseudonymous apocrypha that had NT figures attached to them? My point is simply whatever the reality is we all as Christians who accept the NT cannon by default accept the tradition that produced it within the church.

What if the Catholic Church “developed” the tradition of the papacy in the same way? For example, you currently take it on tradition that Peter exercised some kind of supreme “last say” authority during his life and that he formally passed the mantle to Linus, who succeeded him and knew that he succeeded Peter because Peter said as much to him. What if the Church began saying we actually can’t know for sure that Peter had any sort of “last say,” and it’s equally probable that Peter never named Linus his successor and neither Linus nor anyone else understood him to be “the successor” of Peter during his lifetime? You can easily claim continuity of tradition by saying “the papacy did not instantly spring from the bosom of the earliest Church fully formed and functional, but developed over time.” Catholic historians can and have said all of this. But- hypothetically- if this becomes the prevailing way of thinking among Church leadership in the next couple of centuries, won’t that be a break with previous teaching, and how would it be any different from the “development” that happened with the authorship of those six books?

In relation to the development of the Episcopacy there are as you know different views of how it developed. Im not sure how the legitimacy would be brought into question by Catholics themselves but i am aware that there are definitely different beliefs within the church to my understanding. I think for me personally as one entering the Catholic church the issue of infallibility of church teaching can not be reduced to indefectibility as Hans Kung has written about. However the question as to what has been taught de fide ex ordinario magisterio is not always clear to me. This IMO is a good point you bring up.

Yes, largely having to do with accepting and rejecting different apocryphal books, right? I remember seeing something about an apocryphal book that was banned in the West while it influenced the tradition of the East, and then the ban was lifted later on and that view became acceptable in the West, although it was never exactly dominant. Is that right? Do you know which book that would have been?

I was thinking of the Protevangelium of James 9:2 that mentions Joseph’s previous children and the later tradition from Jerome claiming they were cousins. Both agreed she never had any children herself.

With the exception of a higher regard for the allegorical method of interpretation, I think Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars (at the really elite level, anyway) are largely doing the same things with interpretation, and I think that’s really good to see. I don’t necessarily assume that Catholic scholars had to catch up to Protestant scholars, although it may have gone one way or the other in different parts of the world. What’s important to me is that we all found our way to roughly the same place, and Christians throughout the world have more similarities in their approach to Scripture than they used to.

I agree to my understanding from what i have read this seems to be a very positive move in the last 50 years or so.

 

[cooterhein]

By saying tradition guided the church I simply mean that it seems to me that it existed before the NT, is detectable within it and influenced its contents and has been strongly influential in its interpretation ever since. Of course I’m guessing you and I would both agree certain traditions that led to gnostic or docetist beliefs might not have been so faithful.

Did you know that a heretic was responsible for the first recorded attempt at an NT canon? What do you make of that?

I’m not sure if when the church in the 2nd century who attributed names to the anonymous gospels and accepted a collection of Paul’s writings were aware of the idea that Apostolicity might include the pseudonymous practice of a disciple of the Pauline “school” (or the other NT pseudonymity) considering himself an authoritative interpreter of Paul whose thought he endorsed and whose writing would be received authoritatively.

I don’t think they would have put all those ideas together in one place, especially after Jewish Christians stopped being a major part of Christianity. I do remember something that Origen said about these attributed names, though. I can’t remember exactly which books he was talking about, but he said something like “Men from of old have passed down these names as the authors of these books, but God only knows if that is actually true.” My first thought is that if these are “men from of old” according to Origen, that’s really, really old. My second thought is that there were different kinds of people that had different levels of assent to that tradition. Some heard it and said “The men from of old probably have a reliable link to actual knowledge of who wrote it. I’m secure in that.” And others believed it was just as likely that they didn’t have such a link, but God only knows if that’s true.

For that particular tradition, it seems like one of those points of view became unacceptable, then later on, it flipped to where the other one was more highly favored among Catholics.

If the later church would have know this would the writings still have been canonized?

I think so. There was still enough reason to believe they were breathed out by God.

How are these writings different from the pseudonymous apocrypha that had NT figures attached to them?

Well…on behalf of the Gospel of James, I can tell you there’s a pretty large number of geographical and historical falsehoods in it that disqualify authorship by anyone who lived in that area of the world or within a century of its falsified date. That sets it apart from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which do get all those little details right. Even if you give credence to Markan priority, a Q document, or any other kind of textual criticism that has to do with authorship, you can still see that the actual Gospels were at least written by people who lived in that place and time while books like the protoevangelium of James were not. That’s one example.

I’m not as familiar with all the pseudonymous apocrypha, but I do know there’s a lot more that sets them apart from genuine Scripture than just the author that’s attributed to them.

My point is simply whatever the reality is we all as Christians who accept the NT cannon by default accept the tradition that produced it within the church.

At this point, I think most Protestants accept the NT canon by default, but historically, it has been re-examined in order to affirm that the tradition is actually right. Personally, I wouldn’t be satisfied with “accepting by default” unless the tradition had been checked dozens of different ways for truth and accuracy, which it has.

I think for me personally as one entering the Catholic church the issue of infallibility of church teaching can not be reduced to indefectibility as Hans Kung has written about.

For me personally, I think the issue of infallibility of church teaching can be reduced to “anachronistic.” But that’s just me.

My reasoning: No one (and I mean no one) claimed divine protection from error or even suggested that it might be possible for an ecumenical council to do so until the 8th century. It wasn’t until the back half of the 9th century that the idea had really become popular. And now there’s Catholic scholars who spend a pretty good amount of time trying to decide which traditions prior to the 8th and 9th centuries were protected from error and which ones were not. That’s what I call anachronistic. To this point, I haven’t come across a really good reason not to call it that.

However the question as to what has been taught de fide ex ordinario magisterio is not always clear to me. This IMO is a good point you bring up.

If you’re going through some kind of Catholic ed program right now and the people in charge know what they’re doing, would you mind bringing it up at some point? If there is a good reason for me to stop using the word “anachronistic,” I definitely don’t mind knowing about it. And thanks for saying it’s a good question.

I was thinking of the Protevangelium of James 9:2 that mentions Joseph’s previous children and the later tradition from Jerome claiming they were cousins. Both agreed she never had any children herself.

From what I’ve seen, one of those traditions was banned in the West for a period of time and later reinstated as an acceptable alternative. I would have to double-check to see which it was and when it happened, though.

I agree to my understanding from what i have read this seems to be a very positive move in the last 50 years or so.

That’s what I’ve seen, too. It occurs to me that I don’t know exactly what caused that move to happen, though. I’ll have to look into it a little more.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I don’t totally understand the question and the various options. I think I am somewhere between 2 and 3. So FWIW I voted 3.

Edit: Reading it again I think I also am a 2. But I already voted 3. Oh well.

 

[cooterhein]

It’s been about a week since anyone voted on this. Anyone else who wants to vote, here’s your chance. I think we’ve gotten comments from representatives of just about every category except for the people voting for number 5. People have voted for that one, but they haven’t made any comments. Which is fine; you don’t have to make any comments. But it would be kind of nice.