Scott Hahn and "Prima Scriptura"?

[bengal_fan]

yes, sacred tradition is part of divine revelation. my only point is that sacred tradition is the interpretation of and instruction in sacred scripture and therefore it all starts with scripture.

in dealing with genesis and moses…

yes, there were traditions that came from the history of genesis (i.e. firstborn priesthood, covenant with God through abraham) but these were either fully interpreted or even changed when it came to moses so it would be tough to call those “sacred tradition” while just tradition (or discipline) would be better. i am not trying to argue one over the other, i am arguing one before the other.

 

[Katholish]

Bengal,

and Divine Revelation is the Word of God, the Word of God being both Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition, correct?

 

[Magnanimity]

Greetings Katholish!

“The problem is that the Magisterium is not a part of Divine Revelation at all. Divine Revelation is the Word of God, it is the Deposit of Faith.”

I’m not sure how relevant that fact is since the Magisterium is inexorably linked with the sensus fidelium of the Church and makes genuine contributions to the progress of doctrine throughout the ages. If so, at the very least one would have to admit that the Magisterium is further clarifying Divine Revelation, and what this usually amounts to, as Marian doctrines seem to show clearly, is some degree of novelty.

“The Magisterium interprets Divine Revelation, but is not itself part of Divine Revelation (its existance and authority are, but not its
acts).”

I would tend to think that it would have to be a part of it at least insofar as the Magisterium is an instrumental cause (at least that type of cause) of Divine Revelation as witnessed by the Church in the progress of doctrine.

"The Magisterium is infallible so that it correctly interprets the Word of God, however.

That is the problem with point #3. The Magisterium is the servant of Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures, it is not their equal."

Well, I don’t know of anyone (including Hahn) who is saying the Magisterium is equal in all senses with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, so I’m not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here. But, I am well aware of these passages from Dei Verbum as Francis Sullivan, SJ makes frequent usage of them in his writings on the Magisterium and authority of the Church. They are excellent passages.

 

[Magnanimity]

“The Council of Trent clearly shows the Divine source of Tradition, either from the mouth of Christ, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating. ‘It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.’”

This is an interesting quote, and I’m not sure I’ve read it before. Thanks for sharing it. I think it could be used legitimately to support your criticism of of prima scriptura. My problem though would still be along the lines of a proper understanding of the Magisterium as a genuine contributor to the progress of doctrine, which with the latest decrees of the councils and popes do not seem to be plausibly part of some “original” unwritten tradition-rather, it seems to be genuine clarification without significant precedent.

“Sacred Tradition is part of the Word of God, it is His Word, He is the source of it.”

Yes, I understand this, but I’m missing the cash value of what you’re advocating here. What exactly are we to understand by this? That conciliar documents or papal encyclicals are God-breathed in the same way that, say, the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans is? I’m not sure how plausible this view is, if this is indeed what you are advocating. If it is not the view you are advocating and is something weaker, like say, the truths contained in the conciliar docs and bulls, etc. all have God as their author, then this view is perfectly consistent with that of Hahn.

Can you be any more specific in how all of these things (e.g., Tradition and Scripture) exactly parse out with regard to authoritativeness, infallibility and inspiration? I want to know what, if any, are the qualitative differences between the Scriptures and, say, conciliar docs.

Some seem to be confusing Sacred Tradition with the Magisterium. The role of Tradition is not to interpret the Scriptures, it is the role of the Magisterium to interpret both.

Sacred Tradition is truly inspired as God is its source.

Well, if this is all that inspiration amounts to, that God is its source, then sure we’d probably all agree that God is the source of the truths contained in the Bible as well as in the Councils and papal promulgations. However, it seems to me that inspiration makes a distinction from mere infallibility in that inspiration has God as the primary author of a text and man as the secondary author. With infallibility being just the reverse-man is the primary author and God is the protector from error. I do not see in any official document that you have presented that this view is opposed to the teachings of the Church.

“It is not proclaimed by man and merely protected from Error by God, but it is rather part of Divine Revelation, God’s Own Word.”

In that case, wish you to address my specific questions above. ANd one last question, what, and where, is sacred tradition on the view you are advocating?

 

[Katholish]

Magnanimity,

I’m not sure how relevant that fact is since the Magisterium is inexorably linked with the sensus fidelium of the Church and makes genuine contributions to the progress of doctrine throughout the ages. If so, at the very least one would have to admit that the Magisterium is further clarifying Divine Revelation, and what this usually amounts to, as Marian doctrines seem to show clearly, is some degree of novelty.

The Magisterium contributes to our understanding of doctrine, it further clarifies, explains, and makes it known, certainly.

The question is relevant because, not being Divine Revelation itself, it has limitations. It cannot invent doctrine. The Magisterium cannot define what is not already part of the Deposit of Faith, that is what is not already included in the Sacred Scriptures or Divine Tradition. In the case of Marian doctrine, if these doctrines were not in Tradition or the Sacred Scriptures, the Magisterium could not declare them. I do not know what you meant by “some degree of novelty”, but that certainly cannot be novelty of doctrine.

I am also interested, in pursuit of clarification, what you mean by “the Magisterium is inexorably linked with the sensus fidelium of the Church”.

I would tend to think that it would have to be a part of it at least insofar as the Magisterium is an instrumental cause (at least that type of cause) of Divine Revelation as witnessed by the Church in the progress of doctrine.

An instrumental cause? How so? Certainly it makes known what is Divine Revelation, it is afterall the authentic interpreter, but Divine Revelation is inspired by the Holy Spirit, either by means of the human writers of Sacred Scripture, or by means of the Apostles and Sacred Tradition. Divine Revelation is caused by God, it is revealed by Him, not by men that are protected from error as in the protection of infallibility given to the Magisterium.

Dei Verbum says explicitly that the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. The implication clearly being that it is not part of the Word of God. The Magisterium draws from “this one deposit of Faith”, which is the Word of God, Divine Revelation.

Dei Verbum, 10:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Well, I don’t know of anyone (including Hahn) who is saying the Magisterium is equal in all senses with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, so I’m not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here. But, I am well aware of these passages from Dei Verbum as Francis Sullivan, SJ makes frequent usage of them in his writings on the Magisterium and authority of the Church. They are excellent passages.

The point that I am trying to make is that Dr. Hahn does state that the Magisterium is part of Divine Revelation.

Dr. Hahn, The Church and the Universal Catechism, Prima Scriptura, pg 89:

Second, whereas all three channels of revelation (Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium) convey the Word of God, Scripture alone consists of God’s words.

He certainly does not say that the Magisterium is equal to Scripture, but does imply that it is equal to Tradition by erroring on the other side and claiming that Scripture is superior to Tradition, for it alone is inspired (which is not true).

 

[Katholish]

I somewhat address your reply to the quote from the Council of Trent in my last reply regarding novelty in doctrine and the limitation of the Magisterium to the Deposit of Faith, so I will not address it again right here.

Yes, I understand this, but I’m missing the cash value of what you’re advocating here. What exactly are we to understand by this? That conciliar documents or papal encyclicals are God-breathed in the same way that, say, the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans is? I’m not sure how plausible this view is, if this is indeed what you are advocating. If it is not the view you are advocating and is something weaker, like say, the truths contained in the conciliar docs and bulls, etc. all have God as their author, then this view is perfectly consistent with that of Hahn.

What I am saying by that sentence is that Tradition is authored by God, it is His very Word and hence is Inspired. Dr. Hahn explicitly denies this, claiming that only Scripture is inspired.

I am not saying that conciliar documents or papal encyclicals are “God-breathed” in the same way as Scripture. Neither am I saying that conciliar documents and papal encyclicals have God as their author. I will give Dr. Hahn the benefit of a doubt and not say that this is consistent with his position, though claiming that the Magisterium is part of Revelation might well lead their logically, for it is an error. God is not the author of Magisterial statements. The men that write them are, they are not inspired. They are, however, infallible, but there is a categorical difference between infallibility and inspiration which Dr. Hahn is very well aware. He claims that only Scripture is inspired, and that Tradition and the Magisterium are merely infallible. He is right about the Magisterium but wrong about Divine Tradition which is inspired.

Can you be any more specific in how all of these things (e.g., Tradition and Scripture) exactly parse out with regard to authoritativeness, infallibility and inspiration? I want to know what, if any, are the qualitative differences between the Scriptures and, say, conciliar docs.

Scripture and Tradition are both the Word of God and Inspired. They are hence equal in authority in that regard.

The Magisterium is infallible, which means that it is writen by human authors, but the Holy Spirit prevents them from making error in matters of Faith or Morals. Infallibility is negative protection, whereas Inspiration is positive authorship.

However, it seems to me that inspiration makes a distinction from mere infallibility in that inspiration has God as the primary author of a text and man as the secondary author. With infallibility being just the reverse-man is the primary author and God is the protector from error. I do not see in any official document that you have presented that this view is opposed to the teachings of the Church.

And you will not find a Magisterial teaching that contradicts it because it is correct. That is precisely what I am saying, the issue though concerns whether inspiration applies to Sacred Tradition, which it does, but Dr. Hahn denies.

In that case, wish you to address my specific questions above. ANd one last question, what, and where, is sacred tradition on the view you are advocating?

I am going to barrow the words of the Council of Trent in Session IV, the Decree on the Canonical Scriptures.

Divine Tradition is the truths and rules which are contained in unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

However, I would replace the word “dictating” with “inspiring”, there is a subtle but real distinction and I think it more appropriate for clarity’s sake.

 

[jpusateri]

bengal_fan:

yes, sacred tradition is part of divine revelation. my only point is that sacred tradition is the interpretation of and instruction in sacred scripture and therefore it all starts with scripture.

in dealing with genesis and moses…

yes, there were traditions that came from the history of genesis (i.e. firstborn priesthood, covenant with God through abraham) but these were either fully interpreted or even changed when it came to moses so it would be tough to call those “sacred tradition” while just tradition (or discipline) would be better. i am not trying to argue one over the other, i am arguing one before the other.

Okay. I am getting closer to understanding what your point. (Sorry for my slowness.) Which one are you arguing goes before which? And what does that show?

Also, I have an issue with saying anything written is completely interpreted, since St. Paul interprets Jesus words and OT events in light of NT events, and Christians still are arguing what it really means. (For example infant baptism)

All tradition/what-it-means MUST be extra-scriptural, because it takes an intellect to hold to a concept of what-it-means. Scripture can only witness to or against a particular interpretation, but cannot be fully interpreted in and of itself, because the reader plays a part.

 

[Katholish]

jpusateri

All tradition/what-it-means MUST be extra-scriptural, because it takes an intellect to hold to a concept of what-it-means. Scripture can only witness to or against a particular interpretation, but cannot be fully interpreted in and of itself, because the reader plays a part.

You do not mean by this that All of what is contained in Sacred Tradition does not find a parallel in Sacred Scripture, do you? For there is much that is in Tradtion that is also in Scripture and much that is in Scripture that was in Tradition. However, neither one has its source completely in the other, but rather both flow from the same Divine well-spring.

 

[CatholicSamurai]

Veritas… I think your friend has a sad case of pride. I am not here to accuse but from what I have read so far… this seems to be the case.

I’d just laugh… anyway, no matter how good a theologian your friend might be in the future… if he still carries this pride, his theology is useless in my book.

 

[jpusateri]

Katholish:

jpusateri
You do not mean by this that All of what is contained in Sacred Tradition does not find a parallel in Sacred Scripture, do you? For there is much that is in Tradtion that is also in Scripture and much that is in Scripture that was in Tradition. However, neither one has its source completely in the other, but rather both flow from the same Divine well-spring.

You are correct. I do NOT mean that All of what is contained in Sacred Tradition does not find a parallel in Sacred Scripture.

I am trying to say that an interpretation of scripture can not be entirely contained within scripture. That scripture is a witness to an interpretation and it takes a lawyer (to borrow courtroom metaphors) to interpret the facts. The witness’ information may or may not support the interpretation, but the lawyer who is different from the witness will call upon the witness to support his position.

So Scripture is our store of what happened and Tradition is our store of what it means to us. They MUST be separate.

Think about this. Every Protestant denomination has its own tradition, or “what it means to them”. This is what separates one denomination from another. Evangelical/fundamentalist(?) protestants agree on what Hank Hanegraaf calls “orthodox christianity” * which is the set of beliefs to be called a Christian (to him of course). Since they’ll tell you that there is no authority but scripture, where is this set of baseline beliefs come from???

Protestant tradition of course! Each denomination has a set of beliefs. All of them Bible/scripture-based. However they don’t all agree. There is only one scripture. If “what it all means” were entirely contained within scripture, there would be only ONE possible interpretation.

Therefore there is no way that the tradition can be entirely contained within scripture itself.

I hope that made sense to everyone. (I will keep re-reading it myself ! )*

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Just to clarify my earlier post that sparked quite a debate over predating, I intended to say that Tradition predates NT scriptures and that without it we would have no sure means of determining the OT canon. Obviously, the writings of the OT existed before we received the Tradition from Christ and the Apostles. However, it is also important to note that oral tradition did play a significant role in the formation of the OT as well (one need not confine oneself to Genesis, the Prophets are also excellent examples).

As to inspiration, while it is correct to say that Tradition is inspired, I think it is also correct to say that it is not “inspired” as the Scriptures are. I say this because the words of Christ and the Apostles were inspired, Divine Revelation, but while the Scriptures have transmitted those words as an unchanging text, Tradition has passed on the teachings, not the exact inspired words of the speakers. The teachings/truths are thus still inspired, but the form in which we access them is not. So I can see how Dr. Hahn could respect its inspiriation-a while still claiming it is not inspired-b.

That segues into the murky relationship between Tradition and the Magisterium, the two sometimes being hard to differentiate. The Magisterium is the interpreter of Revelation, thus also more specifically of Tradition. But in its acts of interpretation, is it not also passing on and safeguarding Tradition, since it cannot add doctrine or dogma? When the Fathers, especially the Apostolic Fathers, commented on Scripture they were exercising the duty of the Magisterium (the definition of which has also been somewhat instable over the years - at the time of Luther, all theology professors were also considered members/part of the Magisterium). Yet when we speak of consulting Tradition, is it not these Fathers we turn to?

The Magisterium is sometimes obviously different, as when it interprets Tradition (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc.). But otherwise, when Tradition and Magisterium seem somewhat inseparable, I can see how, while technically not Divine Revelation, it is listed along with Scripture and Tradition by Dr. Hahn.

 

[bengal_fan]

i think we are all in agreement in here that scripture and tradition hold an equal importance. they are both inspired. the first is inerrant and the second is infallible. i’m pretty sure we can all attest to this. my only point is the prima scriptura says that we begin with scripture. scripture is what tells us that tradition is infallible. scripture is the measuring stick. we begin with scripture but that does not mean it is above, it is just used before tradition.

 

[Katholish]

jpusateri,

I am trying to say that an interpretation of scripture can not be entirely contained within scripture. That scripture is a witness to an interpretation and it takes a lawyer (to borrow courtroom metaphors) to interpret the facts. The witness’ information may or may not support the interpretation, but the lawyer who is different from the witness will call upon the witness to support his position.

So Scripture is our store of what happened and Tradition is our store of what it means to us. They MUST be separate.

If you think that Tradition is the interpreter, what role then do you see the Magisterium fulfilling? I think that your court room analogy is fundamentally flawed in its presentation, the idea of a court room is good, but I am afraid that the roles see to be confused.

Scripture is like a witness, that is good, but Tradition is the second witness, no less credible then the first. It is the Magisterium that is your lawyer and interprets the information of the witnesses.

Both witnesses are giving an accurate account of what happened, sometimes their stories are exactly the same, sometimes, one might have seen the events at a different angle, and be able to give a fuller picture than just one witness could have.

Tradition and Interpretation are not the same thing. Tradition is something that is interpreted, it is not the interpretor, that is the Magisterium.

 

[javelin]

Andreas Hofer:

As to inspiration, while it is correct to say that Tradition is inspired, I think it is also correct to say that it is not “inspired” as the Scriptures are. I say this because the words of Christ and the Apostles were inspired, Divine Revelation, but while the Scriptures have transmitted those words as an unchanging text, Tradition has passed on the teachings, not the exact inspired words of the speakers. The teachings/truths are thus still inspired, but the form in which we access them is not. So I can see how Dr. Hahn could respect its inspiriation-a while still claiming it is not inspired-b.

I think this is at the heart of the issue, and demonstrates how it is possible for someone to hold to the view that Sacred Scripture should have some degree of primacy. This is how I understand the argument:

**Divine Revelation **ended when the last of the Apostles died, since Divine Revelation is confined to what was divinely revealed (i.e. inspired) by the Holy Spirit through Jesus and the Apostlesduring the Apostalic age. In some cases, the revelation was written down, in others it was not. This brings about the existence of two sources of divine revelation that make up the Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. That deposit of faith is complete, inspired, and unchanging. I believe that throughout this discussion, when people have used the word “inspired”, what they mean is that it is part of the Deposit of Faith.

So, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both inspired, and together, materially, form the deposit of faith, which is incomplete without either component. Being that as it may, it is incorrect to try to place one above the other, as council documents well quoted in previous posts clearly state.

***However

*The means of conveyance of the truths present in the Deposit of Fatih differ for both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In Sacred Scripture, we have the actual words of the writer. The Church recognizes that the specific words of Sacred Scripture, having been put down during the time of Divine Revelation, are inspired in and of themselves. This is important because the means of conveyance for Sacred Tradition, namely oral tradition and accompanying written works apart from Sacred Scripture, are not “inspired” (i.e. part of the deposit of faith). Therefore, when we now consume Sacred Tradition, we are consuming and uninspired transmission of an inspired Truth. When we consume Sacred Scripture, we consume an inspired transmission of an inspired Truth. In both cases, the Truth **(deposit of faith) is identical and to be regarded equally, but the description of that Truth is in one case inspired, and in the other not inspired. If we knew the exact words the the Apostled used to describe and teach the Truths that make up Sacred Tradition, then there would be no difference between the conveyance of Sacred Tradition vs. Sacred Scripture. I believe, although I will not presume to speak for him, that Dr. Hahn is trying to describe this reality–a reality that is fully in agreement with Catholic teaching (as far as I know).

continued in next post…

 

[javelin]

…continued from previous post

This is obviously where the Church and Magesterium come in. If the description of the Truths that are a part of the Deposit of Faith by means of Sacred Tradition are not inspired, then how can we know that the message we are hearing today faithfully adheres to, and does not misrepresent that Truth? We have assurance that through the Holy Spirit, the Magesterium will not unfaithfully or incorrectly represent those Truths to us (infallibility). Will they always convey the whole Truth? No. Will they always present it as precisely and fully as the Apostles did? No. But they will never profess untruth. Conversely, the Bible always describes the Truth in exactly the way it was inspired because the actual words are preserved * (see note below for corrollary to this).

So it seems to me that both Katholish and jpusateri are correct in their understanding of the Church’s position. What may not be correct is the understanding of what Dr. Hahn really thinks, and to that I will not speculate, though I will err on the side of believing he is in full union with Rome.

javelin

• Note that for this argument to completely carry, we must be consuming the original, unaltered text of Sacred Scripture to be assured of it’s inspiration. Most of us read translations, and some at least reference the original text at times. Still, we can absolutely trust in the precision of a Biblically described Truth, in a careful translation reviewed by the Magesterium.

 

[Katholish]

Andreas,

As to inspiration, while it is correct to say that Tradition is inspired, I think it is also correct to say that it is not “inspired” as the Scriptures are. I say this because the words of Christ and the Apostles were inspired, Divine Revelation, but while the Scriptures have transmitted those words as an unchanging text, Tradition has passed on the teachings, not the exact inspired words of the speakers. The teachings/truths are thus still inspired, but the form in which we access them is not. So I can see how Dr. Hahn could respect its inspiriation-a while still claiming it is not inspired-b.

The writing style of the Sacred Scriptures is arributed to the human authors and not the Divine Inspiration is different from verbal dictation. The human authors of the Scriptures themselves show that style issues are not Divine.

2 Maccabees, Chapter 15:
38 So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration.
39 Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.
40 For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other: so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers. But here it shall be ended.

2 Corinthians 11:
6 For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge: but in all things we have been made manifest to you.

Inspiration is that an impulse to communicate Divine Truths and the active operation of God to ensure that exactly what He wills to be written is, but the human authors are also truly authors and not mere sectretaries taking down verbal dictation, neither does inspiration necessarily mean that the author composed ina state of ecstasy. (This is not meant to be a conclusive, technical, or comprehensive definition)

Why is this relevant to the discussion? Because I think that Inspiration is being somewhat misunderstood, along with a host of other things such as the Magisterium and Tradition.

The Magisterium declares what is Scripture just as it declares what is Tradition. If the Magisterium says that this book is Scripture, then we know that it is inspired. If the Magisterium says that this teaching is part of Divine Tradition, then we know that teaching is Inspired as well. Inspiration is not limited to a verbatim text.

For that matter, when we read the Scriptures, according to your definition, we are not reading anything inspired because it has been translated into another language from the original. Granted that the translatation is not inspired, but the teachings that it communicates are, though they are not presented in the original language. Again, the point is that while Inspiration does apply to the exact words used in the original languages, it also applies to the teaching that the sacred authors set forth, even when those teachings are translated, though the words of the translate themselves are not inspired. Does that make alittle more sense and help explain how the teachings of Tradition are inspired truly?

Now when Dr. Hahn speaks about the language of Scripture being referrential, I don’t see a problem with is, as he does latter on in the paper, however, one cannot deny the Inspiration of the Tradition and demote it to the level of infallibility such as the Magisterium enjoys because in so doing, one effectively denies that the given teaching is part of Divine Revelation.]

 

[Katholish]

Andreas,

That segues into the murky relationship between Tradition and the Magisterium, the two sometimes being hard to differentiate. The Magisterium is the interpreter of Revelation, thus also more specifically of Tradition. But in its acts of interpretation, is it not also passing on and safeguarding Tradition, since it cannot add doctrine or dogma? When the Fathers, especially the Apostolic Fathers, commented on Scripture they were exercising the duty of the Magisterium (the definition of which has also been somewhat instable over the years - at the time of Luther, all theology professors were also considered members/part of the Magisterium). Yet when we speak of consulting Tradition, is it not these Fathers we turn to?

Yes, the Magisterium passes on and safeguards Tradition just as it does the Sacred Scriptures I might add.

We now have an authoritative definition of when the Magisterium speaks in the Extra-ordinary sense from the First Vatican Council. The Ordinary Magisterium is more difficult to technically define when it operates, but nevertheless, I fail to see what you point is.

The Magisterium is sometimes obviously different, as when it interprets Tradition (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc.). But otherwise, when Tradition and Magisterium seem somewhat inseparable, I can see how, while technically not Divine Revelation, it is listed along with Scripture and Tradition by Dr. Hahn.

Tradition and the Magisterium do not seem inseparable to me has both are clearly defined in their differences. However, I also cannot understand how you can say that you understand that it is not a channel of Divine Revelation has are Tradition and Sacred Scripture, yet say that you can see why the exact opposite would be stated by Dr. Hahn, namely that the Magisterium is a channel of Divine Revelation along with Scripture and Tradition. I am not trying to fault anyone for the error, and perhaps it is easy to make (sense many on this board have already done so, but in seeing the evidence and that it is indeed an error, we cannot justify it out of existance, but need to point out the error, and in turn the Church’s authentic teaching on the matter as it is clearly defined.)

 

[Katholish]

Javelin, before I proceed to disagree with you slightly on the matter, I wish to first say that your’s has been the most reasoned response and the most easy to reconcile to orthodox Catholic teachings that I have yet seen, and it is good to see someone try to defend it without freely throwing out established dogma.

The means of conveyance of the truths present in the Deposit of Fatih differ for both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In Sacred Scripture, we have the actual words of the writer. The Church recognizes that the specific words of Sacred Scripture, having been put down during the time of Divine Revelation, are inspired in and of themselves. This is important because the means of conveyance for Sacred Tradition, namely oral tradition and accompanying written works apart from Sacred Scripture, are not “inspired” (i.e. part of the deposit of faith). Therefore, when we now consume Sacred Tradition, we are consuming and uninspired transmission of an inspired Truth. When we consume Sacred Scripture, we consume an inspired transmission of an inspired Truth. In both cases, the Truth (deposit of faith) is identical and to be regarded equally, but the description of that Truth is in one case inspired, and in the other not inspired. If we knew the exact words the the Apostled used to describe and teach the Truths that make up Sacred Tradition, then there would be no difference between the conveyance of Sacred Tradition vs. Sacred Scripture. I believe, although I will not presume to speak for him, that Dr. Hahn is trying to describe this reality–a reality that is fully in agreement with Catholic teaching (as far as I know).

The transmission of Tradition is infallible, as what is Tradition is declared by the Magisterium, which we all agree does have the protection of infallibility. Thus when the we infallbily know what the Inspired teaching of Sacred Tradition is, it has no less authority as it has the full authority of Divine Revelation, as it has been correctly defined. Essentially what the Magisterium tells us is that “Teaching A” is Inspired, being from Tradition.

Dr. Hahn’s paper has two parts, the first is entitled “The Uniqueness of Scripture as Divinely Inspired and Authored” and the second “The Referential Language of Scripture in Catholic Theology and Catechetics”. I can agree mostly with his second section, which is by far the longer of the two, and covers much of your points. I don’t mind saying that the language of Scripture is referential, however, it is in the First Section that I have my three main objections, even the title is objectionable, and since this is the title of the section, I feel confident that this was his intended subject matter and that I am not taking it out of context.

Allow me to quote half of the paragraph in which Dr. Hahn denies the Inspiration of Tradition.

Dr. Hahn, The Church and the Universal Catechism, Prima Scriptura, pg 89:

Thus, inspiration and infallibility are each distinct charisms (gratia gratis data) both of which involve some direct influence of the supernatural order. Inspiration is a charism of a higher order, however, which entails “a particularly efficacious determining impulse,”(16) the result of which is the distinctive and singular privilege of inerrancy. Inspiration occurs when God’s positive influence is brought to bear upon a human writer to guarantee the truth of each and every one of his intentional affirmations. Thus, inspiration pertains to Scripture alone.

I certainly firmly believe in giving the benefit of a doubt, and in fact that is why I spent the money to order the book, so I didn’t just have what others claimed that the book stated. His wording though leaves no room to wiggle as it is utterly without qualification, and even if it was qualified, would still have serious doctrinal issues.

 

[jpusateri]

Katholish:

jpusateri,

If you think that Tradition is the interpreter, what role then do you see the Magisterium fulfilling? I think that your court room analogy is fundamentally flawed in its presentation, the idea of a court room is good, but I am afraid that the roles see to be confused.

Scripture is like a witness, that is good, but Tradition is the second witness, no less credible then the first. It is the Magisterium that is your lawyer and interprets the information of the witnesses.

Both witnesses are giving an accurate account of what happened, sometimes their stories are exactly the same, sometimes, one might have seen the events at a different angle, and be able to give a fuller picture than just one witness could have.

Tradition and Interpretation are not the same thing. Tradition is something that is interpreted, it is not the interpretor, that is the Magisterium.

I guess then to continue my courtroom analogy, the Magisterium is the judge who decides what interpretation (which lawyer) is the correct one. Also, when a situation arises that has not happened in scripture nor within tradition, (e.g. human cloning) then the Magisterium intelligently examines the witness and the interpretation (what it means) and comes up with an application of the two.

Perhaps I am stretching the analogy too thin. Just writing all this has helped me to think it through.

 

[Katholish]

Your Lawyer has to be the Church Fathers, theologians, and Doctors of the Church then. My point is that Tradition is a witness, not an interpretor. If you want the Magisterium as judge, fine, but that doesn’t make Tradition your lawyer.