L
leeanne
Guest
Has anyone asked Dr Hahn about this? It seems to me that going to the source might be a good idea, especially as questions like this could impact his professional standing.
- Status
J
javelin
Guest
It seems, Katholish, that we are in agreement. I don’t really believe there is any functional difference between consuming an inspired truth by an inspired means (Sacred Scripture) and consuming an inspired Truth by an infallible means (Sacred Tradition interpreted by the Magesterium). If one wanted to split hairs on the issue, they probably could (is that what we’ve been doing? 
) , but functionally they have the same import on our lives as Christians. Thank you for sharing as you have. Thanks as well to all other who have contributed.
As for Dr. Hahn’s position:
Dr. Hahn, The Church and the Universal Catechism, Prima Scriptura, pg 89:
I will admit that it is very possible that my understanding of what the attribute “Inspired” actually means may be broader that that which is applied by the Church. Since that is the basis of Dr. Hahn’s argument, maybe clarification is needed for us to see where he’s coming from.
In Christ,
javelin
) , but functionally they have the same import on our lives as Christians. Thank you for sharing as you have. Thanks as well to all other who have contributed.As for Dr. Hahn’s position:
Dr. Hahn, The Church and the Universal Catechism, Prima Scriptura, pg 89:
In light of this quote, I can’t agree with him on several points. First of all, if he believes *inspiration *has the “singular privilege of inerrancy”, then what does he believe the charism of infallibility provides? In the next sentence he provides his definition of inspiration without anything to support that definition (who said it is reserved to writers?). Finally, he proceeds with “Thus, inspiration pertains to Scripture alone”, as though his previous statement proved that as fact. If his definition of inspiration as being reserved to writers is true, then the next statement logically follows, but without any given support for the statement that is the basis of the definition, the “proof” statement fails completely.
I will admit that it is very possible that my understanding of what the attribute “Inspired” actually means may be broader that that which is applied by the Church. Since that is the basis of Dr. Hahn’s argument, maybe clarification is needed for us to see where he’s coming from.
In Christ,
javelin
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Hi Katholish,
Forgive me, but between work and family and other interests, my time here on the forum is necessarily sparse and limited.
Katholish:
Katholish:
Katholish:
Also, I must be operating under a rather truncated view of Sacred Tradition because when I hear you speak of it, it sounds like this amorphous “something, we know not what.” I’ll withold comment on the above to see what you have to say to my final question I asked.
Katholish:
Katholish:
Forgive me, but between work and family and other interests, my time here on the forum is necessarily sparse and limited.
The sense of novelty comes in easily when there is a real historical lack of precedent in the proposition(s) affirmed in the solemn dogmas. I mentioned Marian dogmas, and I confine myself here to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mother, for simplicity and because of the manner in which they were promulgated. I realize that the truth known was prior to the promulgations (the popes appealed to the actual consensus fidelium of their times in order to ascertain with certainty whether these beliefs were already held by the universal Church), but still, at the end of the day it is the Magisterium which gives us the propositions to which to assent. The Church could be said to do this only in the most general way, the way in which She perseveres in the sensus fidei. Still, when it is the case that we have now two dogmas solemnly promulgated by the bishops of Rome (our Magistra), both of which are without significant historical precedent, I fail to see how this is anything other than the Magisterium acting to declare universally something fairly novel.
See my comments above. I’m sure you’ll have a response to them, so I’ll reserve myself to your reply in order to carry the connection between the two any further.
Well, this very fact alone makes it an instrumental cause (if not more than that) of God’s revelation of Himself to His Church. If the Magisterium itself is the means through which we come to know the revelation of God, then this is just what we mean by instrumental cause.
Also, I must be operating under a rather truncated view of Sacred Tradition because when I hear you speak of it, it sounds like this amorphous “something, we know not what.” I’ll withold comment on the above to see what you have to say to my final question I asked.
I don’t see that the quote you’ve given commits him to saying what you are taking him to say, as regards your specific criticism here. But, it seems clear to me that there would always be some sense in which we could assert that the Magisterium or even the general Church “is part of” the Revelation given to us. If the Church is given this “supernatural sense of faith” as Lumen Gentium 12 claims and that the people of God further “penetrate more deeply by accurate insights” this sensus fidei and then the Magisterium can later understand these insights and infallibly promulgate them, what else are these facts demonstrating except that there is some sense in which the Church and its Magistra are “part of” the Divine Revelation?
It has always seemed to me to be in the context of juxtaposing the writings of the Magisterium (not Sacred Tradition) with those of Scripture, which was the initial reason I chose to engage you in this thread. And certainly, from the quote you give here, he has not made the opposition for which you are faulting him.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Hi Katholish,
Forgive me, but between work and family and other interests, my time here on the forum is necessarily sparse and limited.
Katholish:
Katholish:
Katholish:
Also, I must be operating under a rather truncated view of Sacred Tradition because when I hear you speak of it, it sounds like this amorphous “something, we know not what.” I’ll withold comment on the above to see what you have to say to my final question I asked.
Katholish:
Katholish:
Forgive me, but between work and family and other interests, my time here on the forum is necessarily sparse and limited.
The sense of novelty comes in easily when there is a real historical lack of precedent in the proposition(s) affirmed in the solemn dogmas. I mentioned Marian dogmas, and I confine myself here to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mother, for simplicity and because of the manner in which they were promulgated. I realize that the truth known was prior to the promulgations (the popes appealed to the actual consensus fidelium of their times in order to ascertain with certainty whether these beliefs were already held by the universal Church), but still, at the end of the day it is the Magisterium which gives us the propositions to which to assent. The Church could be said to do this only in the most general way, the way in which She perseveres in the sensus fidei. Still, when it is the case that we have now two dogmas solemnly promulgated by the bishops of Rome (our Magistra), both of which are without significant historical precedent, I fail to see how this is anything other than the Magisterium acting to declare universally something fairly novel.
See my comments above. I’m sure you’ll have a response to them, so I’ll reserve myself to your reply in order to carry the connection between the two any further.
Well, this very fact alone makes it an instrumental cause (if not more than that) of God’s revelation of Himself to His Church. If the Magisterium itself is the means through which we come to know the revelation of God, then this is just what we mean by instrumental cause.
Also, I must be operating under a rather truncated view of Sacred Tradition because when I hear you speak of it, it sounds like this amorphous “something, we know not what.” I’ll withold comment on the above to see what you have to say to my final question I asked.
I don’t see that the quote you’ve given commits him to saying what you are taking him to say, as regards your specific criticism here. But, it seems clear to me that there would always be some sense in which we could assert that the Magisterium or even the general Church “is part of” the Revelation given to us. If the Church is given this “supernatural sense of faith” as Lumen Gentium 12 claims and that the people of God further “penetrate more deeply by accurate insights” this sensus fidei and then the Magisterium can later understand these insights and infallibly promulgate them, what else are these facts demonstrating except that there is some sense in which the Church and its Magistra are “part of” the Divine Revelation?
It has always seemed to me to be in the context of juxtaposing the writings of the Magisterium (not Sacred Tradition) with those of Scripture, which was the initial reason I chose to engage you in this thread. And certainly, from the quote you give here, he has not made the opposition for which you are faulting him.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Yes, you’ve got it right here about Professor Hahn. In fact, he could write what you’ve written here exactly as you yourself have written it. For, it is exactly the position he advocates, with all the attending distinctions that you make, etc.
He may do this, and if so, I would have to agree that this would be an error. I only reiterate the point I made above, and that is that I’ve only heard him speak of the inspiration+infallibility vs. infallibility alone distinction with reference to the writings of Sacred Scripture contrasted with the writings of Councils, encyclicals, etc. And on this note, you would seem to agree completely with him.
Again, exactly as Hahn would put it. I’ve never noted that Dr. Hahn has explicitly denied that Sacred Tradition is part of the Word of God. Could you cite a passage where he does this?
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I need to reflect on that some more. BTW, since I’ve got your attention, I wonder if you might be willing to recommend a few texts where I can read more about Sacred Tradition. I’ve read a good bit on the Magisterium, the sense of the faithful, and on doctrinal development, but it occurs to me in our exchange that perhaps I’ve been deficient in my understanding of Sacred Tradition without even realizing it. I usually read on a fairly sophisticated level, but I wouldn’t mind any suggestions you have, even if from more lay-level sources. Thanks!
J
javelin
Guest
In a way, I am addressing my own question above. I just read every section of the Catechism containing the word “inspiration” or “inspired”, and not one* describes Sacred Tradition. *Every reference not used in the normative secular sense (“Christ inspires us, by His example, to…”) refers specifically to Sacred Scripture and all its authors (including theOld Testament). So it appears that while the Catechism clearly holds that all Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Tradition) is Truth from God through the working of the Holy Spirit, the term inspired is specifically used to describe the interaction and cooperation between a believer and the Holy Spirit whereby the words of Truth are put in writing. The Church Magesterium, acting through the Holy Spirit, tells us specifically which texts are truly inspired.
So, back to Dr. Hahn’s quote:
Thus, Katholish’s assertion…
Katholish:
Back to the original question then. If we understand the term “inspired” to mean what the Catechism implies, and can agree with Dr. Hahn that Tradition is therefore* not* inspired, does that necessarily give some primacy to Scripture? Can we logically hold to that while simultaneously holding that “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC #82) ?
It also appears that my lengthy description of Tradition vs. Scripture in my previous post was slightly off-base. The Catechism describes one Deposit of Fatih, as I held, but clearly defines Sacred Tradition as “This living transmission [of the Gospel], accomplished in the Holy Spirit” (emphasis mine). Sacred Scripture is the written transmission of the Gospel. I had painted a more limited picture earlier, asserting that SS and ST were more like puzzle pieces that, when combined, make up the entire Gospel, or Deposit of Faith, which is then transmitted by another means. That is incorrect. The Gospel is its own entity, with Scripture and Tradition being the two objective ways that entity is transmitted to us. They are not the subject of the transmission (that is the Gospel), but the transmission itself. The Magesterium infallibly defines for us what is of that transmission and what is not (which books are SS and which teachings are truly part of ST).
I hope this adds some clarification–it certainly has for me. Yet other questions remain, as in what Dr. Hahn is really getting at. I think we’re closer to understanding, if not agreement…
In Christ,
javelin
So, back to Dr. Hahn’s quote:
This quote appears to be completely in line with the Catechism. I have been understanding inspired to mean the equivalent of Revealed (as in a part of Divine Revelation), and it appears that Church theologians do not hold these two terms interchangeable.
Thus, Katholish’s assertion…
… that the substitution of “dictating” with “inspiring” is more appropriate makes sense to me and is how *I *regarded the terms, I have found no evidence from the Catechism that this is indeed a valid substitution.
Back to the original question then. If we understand the term “inspired” to mean what the Catechism implies, and can agree with Dr. Hahn that Tradition is therefore* not* inspired, does that necessarily give some primacy to Scripture? Can we logically hold to that while simultaneously holding that “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC #82) ?
It also appears that my lengthy description of Tradition vs. Scripture in my previous post was slightly off-base. The Catechism describes one Deposit of Fatih, as I held, but clearly defines Sacred Tradition as “This living transmission [of the Gospel], accomplished in the Holy Spirit” (emphasis mine). Sacred Scripture is the written transmission of the Gospel. I had painted a more limited picture earlier, asserting that SS and ST were more like puzzle pieces that, when combined, make up the entire Gospel, or Deposit of Faith, which is then transmitted by another means. That is incorrect. The Gospel is its own entity, with Scripture and Tradition being the two objective ways that entity is transmitted to us. They are not the subject of the transmission (that is the Gospel), but the transmission itself. The Magesterium infallibly defines for us what is of that transmission and what is not (which books are SS and which teachings are truly part of ST).
I hope this adds some clarification–it certainly has for me. Yet other questions remain, as in what Dr. Hahn is really getting at. I think we’re closer to understanding, if not agreement…
In Christ,
javelin
J
javelin
Guest
For clarification of what I stated above, I am using the term “Gospel” as it is used in the Catechism, meaning “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline” (CCC #75), not limited to the Truths in Sacred Scripture, but the entirety of the Deposit of Faith.
Peace,
javelin
Peace,
javelin
K
Katholish
Guest
Magnanimity,
In regard to novelty in Doctrine, perhaps the problem lies with your premise here, which is that these two Marian doctrines are largely without historical precedent, which is utterly incorrect. In addition to Scriptural evidence, we have the testimony of the Church Fathers.
Here are just some examples given in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia under “Immaculate Conception”:
The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not in the Deposit of Faith, and has been held by the Church. It is not capable of making novel doctrine.
In regard to novelty in Doctrine, perhaps the problem lies with your premise here, which is that these two Marian doctrines are largely without historical precedent, which is utterly incorrect. In addition to Scriptural evidence, we have the testimony of the Church Fathers.
Here are just some examples given in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia under “Immaculate Conception”:
I will just use the Immaculate Conception as an example for now unless you require proof of the Assumption as well. Clearly the teaching of the Immaculate Conception cannot be considered novel, really in anyway, in light of the overwealming evidence of the Church Fathers in this regard.
The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not in the Deposit of Faith, and has been held by the Church. It is not capable of making novel doctrine.
K
Katholish
Guest
Ah, there is another distinction to be made though. The Magisterium is an intrumental cause **of our knowing ** what God has revealed, but not an instrumental cause of the Revelation itself. That is the point that I am getting at.
The only sense that the Church and Magisterium are part of Revelation is that Revelation tells us of their existance, foundation, and mission. The operations of the Magisterium are not part of Divine Revelation in any real sense. For one thing, Divine Revelation ended after the death of the Last Apostle.
Dei Verbum, 4:
Well this is a decent step toward agreement.
K
Katholish
Guest
Part 3 of response to Magnanimity. (This 4,000 character limit isn’t all that convienient.)
Dr. Hahn, The Church and the Universal Catechism, Prima Scriptura, pg 89:
“For the sake of clarity, some other distinctions can be made: First, God is identified as the principal author of Scripture, whereas he is not properly the author–bout only the guarantor–of the infallible teachings of Tradition and the Magisterium. Parenthetically, the human writers function freely and fully as the instrumental authors of Scripture (cf. 2Pet. 1:20-21). Second, whereas all three channels of revelation (Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium) convey the Word of God, Scripture alone consist of God’s words.”
Here is another quote from the book. His statement is implicit as opposed to explicit. Here is the intermediate step that I make, and seems perfectly logical. “If God is not the author, then it is not His Word.” That seems fair enough, right? I do not say that Dr. Hahn conscious rejects Tradition as the Word of God, but rather that it is a necessary conclusion from denying God’s authorship. He holds up Tradition to be as much the Word of God as the Magisterium is, which is also a problem, since as I have been saying here, and proving, that Magisterium is not the Word of God, but rather its interpretor.
Dr. Hahn, The Church and the Universal Catechism, Prima Scriptura, pg 89:
“For the sake of clarity, some other distinctions can be made: First, God is identified as the principal author of Scripture, whereas he is not properly the author–bout only the guarantor–of the infallible teachings of Tradition and the Magisterium. Parenthetically, the human writers function freely and fully as the instrumental authors of Scripture (cf. 2Pet. 1:20-21). Second, whereas all three channels of revelation (Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium) convey the Word of God, Scripture alone consist of God’s words.”
Dei Verbum seems the most complete, but I believe that you said that you have already read it. I don’t really know what to recommend. My own knowledge is primarly gained from Theology classes and debates with Protestants on Sola Scriptura, and debates like these, were I actually have to go and find this information.
J
javelin
Guest
Friends, in regard to novelty of doctrine, we all may truly be in agreement while misunderstanding the language. Katholish is completely accurate that the Magesterium is incapable of creating dogma, i.e. defining anything as Truth that is not already part of the Deposit of Fatih. The Magesterium is only capable of correctly describing that which is already part of the eternal, True, complete Revelation of God.
However, Magnanimity is also correct that Magesterial teaching can have the appearance of novelty to the faithful, especially insofar as through a Magesterial proclamation they may hear a teaching that they personally have not been heard desribed before. Certainly the appearance of novelty is there.
At a deeper level, the Magesterium has the charism to correctly interpret understandings of Truth that may be deeper than what was previously commonly understood, which carries with it the appearance of novelty.
This carries from the very nature of infallibility, that just because something is not known specifically to be true, that does not mean it is by nature untrue; rather it is simply unknown. Only when an *unknown *is proven by Magesterial affirmation that it violates a known Truth can it be decreed categorically untrue. And only when an unknown is decreed by Magesterial affirmation to be Truth (which can only happen if it does not conflict with any other known Truth) is it to be understood as categorically True. There are many things, however, that still exist in a state of unknown, which I believe is what Magnanimity is getting at.
When an unknown is understood to be Truth by the Magesterium and proclaimed as such, there is an inherent degree of novelty in that declaration–it is novel that this teaching is infallibly true. In most, if not all cases, the teaching proclaimed by the Magesterium was already widely accepted and followed by the masses, so the argument may be somewhat germane. In ALL cases, hoever, we can be assured that the Magesterial teaching proclaims a Truth that has always been part of the Deposit of Faith, just not completely understood to the depth that the Magesterium infallibly professed.
This said, I won’t presume to put words in anyone’s mouth, so please correct me if I have incorrectly portrayed your understanding.
Peace,
javelin
However, Magnanimity is also correct that Magesterial teaching can have the appearance of novelty to the faithful, especially insofar as through a Magesterial proclamation they may hear a teaching that they personally have not been heard desribed before. Certainly the appearance of novelty is there.
At a deeper level, the Magesterium has the charism to correctly interpret understandings of Truth that may be deeper than what was previously commonly understood, which carries with it the appearance of novelty.
This carries from the very nature of infallibility, that just because something is not known specifically to be true, that does not mean it is by nature untrue; rather it is simply unknown. Only when an *unknown *is proven by Magesterial affirmation that it violates a known Truth can it be decreed categorically untrue. And only when an unknown is decreed by Magesterial affirmation to be Truth (which can only happen if it does not conflict with any other known Truth) is it to be understood as categorically True. There are many things, however, that still exist in a state of unknown, which I believe is what Magnanimity is getting at.
When an unknown is understood to be Truth by the Magesterium and proclaimed as such, there is an inherent degree of novelty in that declaration–it is novel that this teaching is infallibly true. In most, if not all cases, the teaching proclaimed by the Magesterium was already widely accepted and followed by the masses, so the argument may be somewhat germane. In ALL cases, hoever, we can be assured that the Magesterial teaching proclaims a Truth that has always been part of the Deposit of Faith, just not completely understood to the depth that the Magesterium infallibly professed.
This said, I won’t presume to put words in anyone’s mouth, so please correct me if I have incorrectly portrayed your understanding.
Peace,
javelin
K
Katholish
Guest
Javelin,
I might look for others, but here is one theological source that uses the term inspiration to refer to Tradition.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917 Edition, “Tradition and Living magisterium”:
I would also be hesitant about simply relegating Tradition and Scripture to forms of transmission of the Word of God (the Gospel, i.e. Deposit of Faith). Keep in mind that we do also refer to the Scriptures themselves as the Word of God, because they are not just a record of His Words, but because the Scriptures are inspired, God is the author of the text, and not just the message.
The Catechism never states that Tradition is not Inspired, and it only defines Inspiration in relation to Scripture. I would not draw any conclusions based on what the Catechism does not say however. It is meant to be a guide, but is not a complete compedium of the Faith and Doctrine.
I would like to also point out concerning Dr. Hahn’s statements, that when he says that Tradition is not Inspired, he means that it is not authored by God (which is stated explicitly in one of the quotes that I have provided.) However, both you (Javelin) and I seems to agree on the Divine authorship and origination of Divine Tradition.
I might look for others, but here is one theological source that uses the term inspiration to refer to Tradition.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917 Edition, “Tradition and Living magisterium”:
I hadn’t seen this when I substituted the word inspiration for dictating in the Council of Trent’s definition, but it seems full approved of here, since they make the same substitution. The point is that “dictating” can be an even higher form than inspiration.
I would also be hesitant about simply relegating Tradition and Scripture to forms of transmission of the Word of God (the Gospel, i.e. Deposit of Faith). Keep in mind that we do also refer to the Scriptures themselves as the Word of God, because they are not just a record of His Words, but because the Scriptures are inspired, God is the author of the text, and not just the message.
The Catechism never states that Tradition is not Inspired, and it only defines Inspiration in relation to Scripture. I would not draw any conclusions based on what the Catechism does not say however. It is meant to be a guide, but is not a complete compedium of the Faith and Doctrine.
I would like to also point out concerning Dr. Hahn’s statements, that when he says that Tradition is not Inspired, he means that it is not authored by God (which is stated explicitly in one of the quotes that I have provided.) However, both you (Javelin) and I seems to agree on the Divine authorship and origination of Divine Tradition.
J
javelin
Guest
God is great!! The more I’m reading this, the more and more it makes sense!
Tell me, how does this passage from the CCC not say that Magesterial teaching (not the Magesterium itself) and Tradition are the same thing?
javelin
Tell me, how does this passage from the CCC not say that Magesterial teaching (not the Magesterium itself) and Tradition are the same thing?
[77](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/77.htm’)
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
<>Isn’t that exactly what Dr. Hahn is saying? I noticed in his quote that Katholish supplied, he constantly says “Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium”. He’s not making three distinctions (Scripture**,** Tradition**,** Magesterium), but actually *grouping *Tradition and the Magesterium, recognizing that Tradition and Magesterial teaching are really the same thing.[78](javascript
javelin
J
jpusateri
Guest
Works for me. I would agree that the Lawyers are the Church Fathers, etc.
Tradition then is their interpretation of scripture along with other non-scripture passed down in the deposit of Faith.
However it’s a package. Both the interpretation AND the non-scriptural deposit of Faith are a set. A Tradition is ALSO what it means and does not need to be derivable from scripture.
In this analogy then, Protestant denominations have their own laywers and interpretation of facts. That is their “tradition.”
I would also say that this analogy is not perfect, but establishes a working relationship between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. No?
J
javelin
Guest
That may certainly be the case. I was merely trying to establish why there could be an argument that the term inspired could be strictly confined to written work only. I was not trying to prove that the term is always used that way, although the fact that the Catechism speaks very clearly of Inspiration as the source of the written word without describing Tradition with that term is of import (I believe) to the argument. After all, we are really trying to determine what the Church teaches on the topic, not merely asserting what we, or even certain theologians might think.
Exactly! This is one of the points of the whole of this thread–Sacred Scripture is unique in that it is inspired, meaning that God is the author of the text (the means of transmission, the written word) and not just the message. Sacred Tradition cannot make the same claim (that God is actually the author of the means of transmission, the spoken word).
All I had stated was that the Catechism does not support the definition of “Inspired” that it appeared we were using, and if the definition that is implied by the Catechism is understood, Dr. Hahn’s position begins to make sense.
Maybe not. I firmly believe in the divine source of the Gospel, but if Tradition is understood to be the transmission of that Gospel, separate from and not involed in the creation of the Gospel, then God is not the author of Sacred Tradition. Therein lies its distinction from Sacred Scripture.
It is clear my understanding of the issue is evolving throughout the course of this discussion, which is great because that is why I’m here–to learn!
javelin
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Hi Katholish,
Katholish:
I notice that, presumably from convenience of being able to find the quotes, you appeal to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as the only one of the two for which you bother to show support. I would assume that since every source I’ve read on the Assumption dates even the appearance of something ostensibly supporting the doctrine in history around the sixth century AD, this is why you do not bother to substantiate the strong claim you make about my assertion being “utterly incorrect.”
Also, if you know the history of how the debate (note that, it was a debate, which clearly falsifies any view that the majority of scholars held to it) over the Immaculate Conception came to a head in the Blessed John Duns Scotus taking on nearly all the major scholastics of his time (e.g., St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas), all of whom denied the teaching, this historical fact is evidence enough that though one can find a Church father here and there who ostensibly supported the teaching, it could hardly be argued that it was majority opinion all the way up to the time of the doctrines first and greatest defender (Bl. John Duns)-the 13th century!
In the light of these arguments and many others I think one would not at all be well within reason in believing that these doctrines were so ancient as to stretch back to the time of the apostles. And again, I’ve not read a contemporary conservative Catholic scholar who doesn’t admit these facts.
Katholish:
Let’s not overstate our case here, with respect to the Bible or the Fathers. It is not necessary, nor would I think it even desirable to do so. I could easily quote multitude conservative Catholic scholars who would all be much more hesitant than you here, and I think with good reason. You state it is “utterly incorrect,” which is certainly very strong language. It is unfortunate therefore, that neither the preponderance of evidence from history nor the majority opinion of scholars today seem to side with you. From what I recall, even Karl Keating does not state it so strongly. It’s usually more of a negative defense (along the lines of, “Well, you can’t find any father who denied the Marian teachings…”). There are possibly too many lines of reasoning that I could bring to bear outside of these mere assertions, but I don’t know that such would be all that profitable for our discussion. I’ll only say a couple of things in reply, and if you wish to reasonably repudiate them, we can go from there.
I notice that, presumably from convenience of being able to find the quotes, you appeal to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as the only one of the two for which you bother to show support. I would assume that since every source I’ve read on the Assumption dates even the appearance of something ostensibly supporting the doctrine in history around the sixth century AD, this is why you do not bother to substantiate the strong claim you make about my assertion being “utterly incorrect.”
Also, if you know the history of how the debate (note that, it was a debate, which clearly falsifies any view that the majority of scholars held to it) over the Immaculate Conception came to a head in the Blessed John Duns Scotus taking on nearly all the major scholastics of his time (e.g., St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas), all of whom denied the teaching, this historical fact is evidence enough that though one can find a Church father here and there who ostensibly supported the teaching, it could hardly be argued that it was majority opinion all the way up to the time of the doctrines first and greatest defender (Bl. John Duns)-the 13th century!
In the light of these arguments and many others I think one would not at all be well within reason in believing that these doctrines were so ancient as to stretch back to the time of the apostles. And again, I’ve not read a contemporary conservative Catholic scholar who doesn’t admit these facts.
I understand your position, so you needn’t restate it. If you wish to repudiate anything I’ve said, however, that is going to require some degree of argument.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Without unnecessarily trying to find bones to pick with any of the various things you have to say, I only want to note that you haven’t dealt with my line of reasoning. you’ve merely restated what you’ve said previously. Again, if there is a genuine progress of doctrine (and there is, both Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium assent to this, to say nothing of the fact of recent Marian dogmas), then it would necessarily follow that there is a sense in which the Church and its Magistra are in some way genuine contributors to the revelation we receive. The only way to deny this line of reasoning is by denying a premise because it’s certainly valid. I know you’ve attempted to deny it with reference to the Immaculate Conception, and I’ve repudiated what you’ve had to say on that score. If, however, that’s too easily seen for you from history, then we’ll just work from the Assumption and use that as my only source of novelty underlying my premise.
As long as there is always a genuine progress in dogma, not a regress or denial of things previously believed, but a progress as several Fathers spoke of, I don’t see how it would be possible to deny that either the Church or the Councils are involved in genuine contributions to the Divine Revelation we have today.
K
Katholish
Guest
Magnanimity, Javelin, and jpusateri,
I think what would be most beneficial in this discussion at this point now that we have talked about it quite a bit would be to draw up a list a propositions, and see on what we agree and on what we do not that way, we can eliminate a certain degree of confusion about where each of us stands. (I will also address your posts in turn, but wanted to do this first.)
Ok, here are a list of propositions that I hold to be true and at the center of this debate, what you can do is tell me which you agree with and which you do not, that way we know what we hold in common to work with to better discuss what we do not hold in common.
A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.
B) Only Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures make up this sacred Deposit of Faith.
C) The “Word of God” is Public Divine Revelation.
D) Public Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
E) The Deposit of Faith is not added to nor subtracted from after the Death of the last Apostle although it is clarified and better understood progressively.
F) The Entire Deposit of Faith has its source from God being Public Divine Revelation.
G) Sacred Tradition, being part of Divine Revelation, has its source from God.
H) Sacred Tradition is the Word of God and the Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God.
I) The Magisterium is not the same as Sacred Tradition.
J) The Magisterium is entrusted with the Deposit of Faith to safegaurd it, declare what it is, and clarify what it means.
K) The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not already part of the Deposit of Faith.
L) The Church Fathers are not a source of Tradition, but rather a source of our knowing and understanding Tradition.
M) The declarations of the Magisterium are infallible, meaning that they have their source in men, but are protected from error by God.
Lets go with this for now, I don’t really want to use the entire alphabet.
I think what would be most beneficial in this discussion at this point now that we have talked about it quite a bit would be to draw up a list a propositions, and see on what we agree and on what we do not that way, we can eliminate a certain degree of confusion about where each of us stands. (I will also address your posts in turn, but wanted to do this first.)
Ok, here are a list of propositions that I hold to be true and at the center of this debate, what you can do is tell me which you agree with and which you do not, that way we know what we hold in common to work with to better discuss what we do not hold in common.
A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.
B) Only Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures make up this sacred Deposit of Faith.
C) The “Word of God” is Public Divine Revelation.
D) Public Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
E) The Deposit of Faith is not added to nor subtracted from after the Death of the last Apostle although it is clarified and better understood progressively.
F) The Entire Deposit of Faith has its source from God being Public Divine Revelation.
G) Sacred Tradition, being part of Divine Revelation, has its source from God.
H) Sacred Tradition is the Word of God and the Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God.
I) The Magisterium is not the same as Sacred Tradition.
J) The Magisterium is entrusted with the Deposit of Faith to safegaurd it, declare what it is, and clarify what it means.
K) The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not already part of the Deposit of Faith.
L) The Church Fathers are not a source of Tradition, but rather a source of our knowing and understanding Tradition.
M) The declarations of the Magisterium are infallible, meaning that they have their source in men, but are protected from error by God.
Lets go with this for now, I don’t really want to use the entire alphabet.
K
Katholish
Guest
Javelin, I agree substantially with your post of August 5th at 11:28am, but there are just some minor clarifications that I would like to make.
I agree that an appearance can exist, just as the appearance of contradiction can exist in the Sacred Scriptures, however, there are no contradictions in actuality in Sacred Scripture, just as I would argue that there are no novel doctrines in reality in the Magisterium.
For instance, the Magisterium cannot state that their was a redeemer of an alien race on another planet. It is true that such a declarion would not contradict known truths, but without such evidence, the Magisterium could not rule in the matter because they are limited to the Deposit of Faith.
It appears that Magnanimity are arguing for more than just appearance, but rather that there is substantial novelty, but this will hopefully become clearer as a result of the list of propositions.
I agree that an appearance can exist, just as the appearance of contradiction can exist in the Sacred Scriptures, however, there are no contradictions in actuality in Sacred Scripture, just as I would argue that there are no novel doctrines in reality in the Magisterium.
Instead of saying “unknown” I would say uncertain myself. In order for the Magisterium to rule on something that is uncertain, it must have evidence that this is part of the Deposit of Faith, either an extenstion of meaning, or clarification of what had previously been stated, or in a matter of application of the teachings of the Deposit of Faith. If something is simply “unknown” and without evidence, the Magisterium could not then rule on it.
For instance, the Magisterium cannot state that their was a redeemer of an alien race on another planet. It is true that such a declarion would not contradict known truths, but without such evidence, the Magisterium could not rule in the matter because they are limited to the Deposit of Faith.
K
Katholish
Guest
Javelin (continued)
Dei Verbum, 8 (bold added):
I know that we agree on this point, but now it is a matter of expressing what it is exactly that we are saying. When you say novelty, you say that it is novel insofar as it is it is now settled (infallibly proclaimed) however, philosophically, you need to understand “what” is novel. There is no degree of novelty in the doctrine, but there is a change in the degree of our knowing. This was a concept that I was explaining yesterday to Magnanimity,
The Magisterium may help us understand it better, and might even clarify it or apply it to a new situation, but the doctrine itself, is still from the Deposit of Faith just as it was given by God as part of Revelation.
Dei Verbum, 8 (bold added):
- Status