Scott Hahn and "Prima Scriptura"?

[javelin]

Good idea, Katholish. Here’s where I’m at now:

A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. – NO

B) Only Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures make up this sacred Deposit of Faith. – NO

C) The “Word of God” is Public Divine Revelation. – YES

D) Public Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. – YES

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. – YES

F) The Entire Deposit of Faith has its source from God being Public Divine Revelation. – YES

G) Sacred Tradition, being part of Divine Revelation, has its source from God. – NO, because I disagree with its premise (as A and B above)

H) Sacred Tradition is the Word of God and the Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God. – NO, same as A, B

I) The Magisterium is not the same as Sacred Tradition. – no, but as of now, I believe Magesterial teachings ARE 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. – YES

K) The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not already part of the Deposit of Faith. – YES

L) The Church Fathers are not a source of Tradition, but rather a source of our knowing and understanding Tradition. – NO

M) The declarations of the Magisterium are infallible, meaning that they have their source in men, but are protected from error by God. – YES
-----------------------

Every answer of NO above is caused by a different understanding of what Sacred Tradition is – an understanding that I derived from the Catechism and described in earlier posts. So for me, discussing what exactly Sacred Tradition IS would be the best future direction.

javelin

P.S. ask me a week ago and I would have said yes to all points…

 

[Katholish]

Javelin, if I could prove Proposition A, do you think that it would turn all if not most of your answers into “Yes”? You seem to indicate that that particular proposition is foundational for our disagreement.

 

[Katholish]

jpusateri:

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?

No. You seem to be missing the point that I am trying to make, because you, like Javelin seem to be making Tradition and the magisterium into the same thing. Perhaps if you fill out your level of agreement with my propositions, we can settle this. However, in regards to the analogy, Tradition and Scripture both share the same function, and that is why in any analogy, they would have to have the same roles, in this, it means that both Scripture and Tradition are witnesses, not one a witness, and the other an interpreting lawyer.

 

[javelin]

Katholish:

Javelin, if I could prove Proposition A, do you think that it would turn all if not most of your answers into “Yes”? You seem to indicate that that particular proposition is foundational for our disagreement.

Possibly. What I really need is Sacred Tradition truly defined. How would you define it? How does the Church define it?

Catechism of the Catholic Church, #78
“This living transmission [of the Gospel], accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition”

javelin

 

[Katholish]

Ok then, perhaps by proving Proposition A, we might be able to get somewhere.

Proposition A:

A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.

Now, this one is going to be extremely easy to prove as it is a direct quote from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum.

Dei Verbum:

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.

As for a definition of Tradition, the one from the Council of Trent that I had given eariler works very well I think, and if you wish to retain the original wording of “dictating” that is fine to.

Council of Trent, 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.

Does that change your No’s to Yes’s?

 

[Katholish]

Magnanimity, it seems to me that the source of our disagreement lies with Proposition K. I am doubtful of the benefit to this dicussion by looking at the specific cases of Marian Doctrine, it seems to be more fitting to look at the premise of the argument first. Which I have already mentioned, but perhaps because I was taking it as more of a premise might not have proven sufficiently, since you seem to disagree with it. If we agreed with Proposition K, we probably wouldn’t be debating the historical precedance of the Assumption.

Propostion K:

K) The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not already part of the Deposit of Faith.

Now, since there are many sources of authority that we both hold in common, it makes more sense to me to argue from what we already have, then to try and prove a doctrine without those authorities, as I might in an apologetics discussion with a non-Catholic.

That being said, I will provide proof of Proposition K from Church documents instead of arguing the historical evidence of a particular doctrine.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”[48]

Dei Verbum, 10 (bold added):

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. 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.

Thus the Doctrine of the Assumption has to be from the Deposit of Faith, it cannot be a novel doctrine of a latter age.

 

[Magnanimity]

I agree with Javelin, this is a good idea, Katholish. I’ll reply in the same manner in which Javelin replied, so as to maintain the continuity for simplicity’s sake. But, as I admitted to you earlier, my understanding of Sacred Tradition is likely quite inadequate, though I think I have a decent hold on the Scriptures and the Magisterium.

A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. – YES

B) Only Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures make up this sacred Deposit of Faith. – YES, BUT I WOULD ADD CAVEATS, AS I’M SURE YOU MIGHT HAVE GUESSED

C) The “Word of God” is Public Divine Revelation. – YES

D) Public Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. – YES, BUT AGAIN, I WOULD ADD SEVERAL CAVEATS, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO THE DIVINE REVELATION OF THE APOSTLES BEING IN MANY AREAS MERELY GERMINAL.

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. – YES, BUT AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO QUALIFY MY ASSENT. IT IS NOT ADDED TO IN SOME MERE MATHEMATICAL WAY, BUT IT IS QUALITATIVELY ADDED TO–IE, WHAT IS TO BE BELIEVED TODAY, WHETHER IN REGARDS TO MANY, MANY AREAS OF DOCTRINE IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH WAS TO BE BELIEVED IN PRIOR AGES, AND THIS IS NOT MERE CLARIFICATION IN SEVERAL CASES, IT IS GENUINE PROGRESSION.

F) The Entire Deposit of Faith has its source from God being Public Divine Revelation. – YES

G) Sacred Tradition, being part of Divine Revelation, has its source from God. – YES

H) Sacred Tradition is the Word of God and the Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God. – YES

I) The Magisterium is not the same as Sacred Tradition. – YES, IF BY THIS YOU MEAN THAT THE MAGISTERIUM IS NOT REDUCIBLE TO SACRED TRADITION. THE NATURES OF THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT; THEY ARE NOT MEREY SYNONYMNS.

J) The Magisterium is entrusted with the Deposit of Faith to safegaurd it, declare what it is, and clarify what it means. – YES, BUT I WOULD ADD TO THIS THE CONCEPT OF GENUINE PROGRESSION

K) The Magisterium cannot declare as dogma, that which is not already part of the Deposit of Faith. – YES, BUT ONLY IF WE HAVE, AS I SAID EARLIER, SOME VERY GERMINAL IDEA OF THE ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT OF FAITH IN SEVERAL KEY AREAS (EG, PAPAL PRIMACY, MARIAN DOGMAS, ETC.)

L) The Church Fathers are not a source of Tradition, but rather a source of our knowing and understanding Tradition. – YES (BUT A WEAK YES, THE QUESTION HAS NEVER OCCURED TO ME)

M) The declarations of the Magisterium are infallible, meaning that they have their source in men, but are protected from error by God. – YES
-----------------------

I’m interested to see where this leads. Thanks for the good suggestion in the “progress” of our discussion.

 

[davidv]

+veritas+:

Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? Can anyone give me any Church documents referencing the use of non-Christian books in teaching religion?

Most, if not all, of the Old Testament is Jewish.
So, for books other than the OT, I think it would depend on what you would be using it for. I would think that a study of our Jewish roots can be very helpful and (name removed by moderator)iring.

 

[jpusateri]

Katholish:

No. You seem to be missing the point that I am trying to make, because you, like Javelin seem to be making Tradition and the magisterium into the same thing. Perhaps if you fill out your level of agreement with my propositions, we can settle this. However, in regards to the analogy, Tradition and Scripture both share the same function, and that is why in any analogy, they would have to have the same roles, in this, it means that both Scripture and Tradition are witnesses, not one a witness, and the other an interpreting lawyer.

The lines aren’t clear and it’s probably a poor analogy, since Tradition includes interpretation of scripture and other parts of Tradition. Just as scripture contains St. Paul’s interpretations of OT scripture in light of NT events. As I said the lines aren’t clear for the roles in this analogy.

In conclusion I can see Tradition and Scripture can both be witnesses then. The Magisterium is the judge and the proponents of a particular interpretation are the different sets of lawyers.

I will respectfully bow out of the discussion at this point because we aren’t getting anywhere and I am not interested in complicating the analogy so that it articulates all your propositional points.

Thank you for the discussion. God Bless!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

bengal_fan:

all of Tradition comes from scripture in some form or another (whether explicit or implicit). Tradition is the churches interpretation of scripture which is why the written word is “prima”. is doesn’t mean better or higher, it just means first. there is no Tradition which contradicts scripture because all of it comes from scripture. scripture does not come from Tradition.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Tradition doesn’t come “from” scripture since it (the deposit of faith) existed BEFORE the bible. Strictly speaking, scripture is a part of Tradition, not the other way around.

 

[Katholish]

I am very surprised Magnanimity. Never did I expect to see yes’s (even qualified yes’s) next to each proposition, particularly Proposition K. Furthermore, I don’t really have much objection to your qualifications. You might be stressing the aspect of “developement” more than I would, but as long as their is agreement with Propositions E and K, the matter of different “stresses” doesn’t seem to be of real substantial concern.

Gee, I am glad I did the list of propositions, at least I will no longer be trying to prove something to you that you already agree with. Perhaps now we are ready to go back to the topic of Prima Scriptura, and the points that Dr. Hahn makes.

The Thrid objection that I had from Dr. Hahn’s paper was:

1. The Magisterium is a channel of Divine Revelation along with Scripture and Tradition.

You had agreed with Proposition B of mine with the following qualification.

B) Only Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures make up this sacred Deposit of Faith. – YES, BUT I WOULD ADD CAVEATS, AS I’M SURE YOU MIGHT HAVE GUESSED

I see these two as contradictory, which is why I object to Dr. Hahn’s statement. However, do you see them as opposed, or would you agree with both? If both, are you hinging agreement on the term “channel” or would you say that the Deposit of Faith isn’t all that there is the Revelation, and that it includes the Magisertium AND the Deposit of Faith?

I also mentioned that I objected to this point made by Dr. Hahn:

1. God is not the author of Sacred Tradition.

I see that as directly opposed to Proposition A, which you also agreed with:

A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. – YES

Do you not see them as opposed?

 

[Katholish]

I respectfully disagree with you here. Tradition doesn’t come “from” scripture since it (the deposit of faith) existed BEFORE the bible. Strictly speaking, scripture is a part of Tradition, not the other way around.

While I agree with what you are trying to say, I think that there is a slight problem with what exactly you said.

I do not think that you can really say that the Deposit of Faith existed before the Scriptures, since the Sacred Scriptures are truly part of the Deposit of Faith. If you meant that in the sense of before the canonization of the Scriptures, then that is a different matter.

 

[javelin]

Everyone,

I greatly appreciate everyone’s responses to my posts and your participation in this discussion. I want to apologize for my lack of recent participation while also asking for your help.

My wife Wendy was hospitalized this week with a chemical imbalance, and things have been very chaotic around here. While we trust in God’s providence, the seriousness of her condition is difficult to deal with. Please keep Wendy and our children in your prayers.

Peace
javelin

 

[bengal_fan]

I respectfully disagree with you here. Tradition doesn’t come “from” scripture since it (the deposit of faith) existed BEFORE the bible. Strictly speaking, scripture is a part of Tradition, not the other way around./QUOTE

thank you for “respectfully” disagreeing, but i’m afraid (at least in the way you worded this) you are wrong. scripture pre-dates tradition. now, tradition pre-dates the canonized books and compilation of what we now call the bible, but the apostles took their cues from the old testament and then (very early) wrote down the things binding on the believers in the new convenant. then, the church proceeded to interpret and impliment the writings of the apostles (tradition).

 

[Brad]

javelin:

Good idea, Katholish. Here’s where I’m at now:

A) Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. – NO

B) Only Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures make up this sacred Deposit of Faith. – NO

C) The “Word of God” is Public Divine Revelation. – YES

D) Public Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. – YES

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. – YES

F) The Entire Deposit of Faith has its source from God being Public Divine Revelation. – YES

G) Sacred Tradition, being part of Divine Revelation, has its source from God. – NO, because I disagree with its premise (as A and B above)

H) Sacred Tradition is the Word of God and the Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God. – NO, same as A, B

Per A, B and H, the following from Dei Verbum would contradict your assertions that these statments are false. Dei Verbum, being a Council document on faith and morals, would trump any alternate theological viewpoint.

Dei Verbum also indicates that Sacred Tradition is, in essence, that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles that was not written down. Thus, Sacred Tradition cannot change whereas traditions within the Church (vestment colors etc) can change.

From 7:

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort
2. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith

 

[The_Dead_Bishop]

Personally, I steer clear of Mr. Hahn, … he still sounds like a Protestant… to me any way.

 

[Brad]

The Dead Bishop:

Personally, I steer clear of Mr. Hahn, … he still sounds like a Protestant… to me any way.

Have you read his books about Mary, The Catholic Church being the one true Church, The Mass meeting heaven and earth???

If he sounds protestant, you must be judging him from some very narrow perspective. I’d suggest you steer a little more in his direction and know what he really teaches before you criticize him.

 

[The_Dead_Bishop]

Brad:

Have you read his books about Mary, The Catholic Church being the one true Church, The Mass meeting heaven and earth???

If he sounds protestant, you must be judging him from some very narrow perspective. I’d suggest you steer a little more in his direction and know what he really teaches before you criticize him.

thank you for your kind and humble advice, but as for me and mine...we shall follow the Lord.

 

[Peg]

I want to comment to bengal-fan about which came first, tradition or scripture. It seems very obvious to me that the apostles taught, preached and had Sunday services for years before anything was ever written. Otherwise we would have something written during the years 34-40 AD and I am sure that none of the NT was written before that time.

When do you suppose the first book of the NT was written?

 

[dcdurel]

I think some of the problem comes from false assumptions picked up from Protestantism.

Inspired simply means that God wrote it, through men.
It does not mean that only inspired writings are the word of God.

For example, Jesus taught and preached, but wrote nothing directly, thus, the Gospel he taught and preached was **not inspired. ** But, of course, it is the Holy Word of God, thus inerrant.

Since these same teachings have been handed down in Sacred Tradition, they also are the word of God. Since they are teachings and not writings, they are not inspired. But, since they come directly from God, they are the pure holy Word of God, thus inerrant.

Since basic teachings handed down in Sacred Tradition are clear, and are the pure teachings of God, and since teachings in scripture are not clear, (that is why Protestants can’t agree on any teaching) we should interpret scripture by the teachings handed down, as taught by the Church. (analogy of faith).