Sola Traditio?

[vadermanu89]

Let us examine a hypothetical situation -

A certain stead-fast Catholic called Martin decided to study Scripture and Tradition. For years, he read Scripture in Greek and Hebrew while reading reputed theologicans exegesis of it.Simultaneously, he read the writings of the Fathers and various Papal and Church teachings throughout the ages. Eventually he concluded, based on his studies of Scripture and Tradition, that the true doctrine of Baptism, Liturgy and Ecumenism is X.

Assuming that at the same time, an Ecumenical Council and 4 Popes, who studied the same Scripture and tradition, both intepretated and taught those same doctrines as Y. The Church taught that her intepretation Y is consistent to Scripture and Tradition.

At this moment Martin has a few choices -

a) He could reject X and adopt Y to be the true meaning behind those doctrines since the Church is infallible and is the pillar and bulwark of truth.

b) He could pit his intepretation X over the Church’s Y and claim that the Church intepretation was wrong.

If he chose option (a) he would be an exemplar Catholic since he has submitted to the leaders of the Church that God has appointed over him.

If he chose option (b), he would have implied that HE is the true judge of Tradition and Scripture and that his intepretation X is the true mark of orthodoxy. Anyone, even the Church itself, who departs from this X, is clearly in error and material heresy.

I personally find the latter option to be similiar to that of Martin Luther in the Diet of Worms when he placed his intepretation of Scripture over the Church’s intepretation. If Martin could determine beyond all doubt that what the “pope” teaches is contrary to Catholic Faith as passed down for 2000 years, then Martin must reject the Church authority and replace it with his own private judgment. This is essentially the essence of Martin Luther’s private judgement theology. While Luther used his private judgement theology to promote Sola Fide, Martin now uses it to promote the illicitness of the Mass and V2 heresies etc.

And lastly to quote Dave Armstrong who traditionify Luther’s I Can Do No Other Speech:

That said, I have come to agree that the pope makes statements which cannot be harmonized with the traditional Catholic Faith. This must stop. All good, conscientious, traditional Catholics have had enough of it. We must adopt the position of the principled Protestants in the halcyon days when that movement first began (like Martin Luther, for example). We must stand up like he did at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and say to this present incorrigibly corrupt Church:

I will answer without horns * and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture [and canon law and obscure statements of various carefully-selected bishops, whose opinions are granted an arbitrary extraordinary importance] and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes [after 1958] and Councils [after 1870], for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God [and canon law and Catholic thought as infallibly interpreted by a small band of elitist, “smarter than the pope” pointy-heads]. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. I am the reluctant rebel.*

In short, doesn’t the very essence of Traditionalism lies in the validity of private judgement theology? If the Protestant notion of the laity intepretating Scripture is flawed, what more of Traditionalist intepretating Scripture AND Tradition?

 

[ABiii]

Were’nt the Sanhedrin following Sola Traditio when they crucified the Christ, under the direction of their leader?

That is the philosophical danger of just following Church teachings without questioning.

When a pope can theoretically say, go and reconquer Jerusalem (thus shedding blood), and your sins are forgiven… I would think twice.

 

[cam100]

Were’nt the Sanhedrin following Sola Traditio when they crucified the Christ, under the direction of their leader?

That is the philosophical danger of just following Church teachings without questioning.

Was their “church” indefectible with an infallible leader?

 

[pprimeau1976]

Was their “church” indefectible with an infallible leader?

The “church” of the Sanhedrin was not. However, I do think that those who God anointed - such as the prophets - were infallible leaders.

 

[cam100]

The “church” of the Sanhedrin was not. However, I do think that those who God anointed - such as the prophets - were infallible leaders.

And the prophets told them to crucify Christ??? Or was it their own incorrect interpretation of scripture and “tradition”?

 

[ABiii]

What if a pope made a mistake? Would that make him fallible?

Peter himself made mistakes. Paul had to rebuke him.

 

[vadermanu89]

What if a pope made a mistake? Would that make him fallible?

Peter himself made mistakes. Paul had to rebuke him.

But how can we, as indiviuals of the laity, judge whether a Pope made a mistake?

Assuming a Pope taught X to be true but based on your own private intepretation of Scripture and Tradition, you personally feel that Y should be true instead. As a result you claim that a Pope has made an error in judgement since he has departed from orthodoxy, Y. The fundamental problem here lies in the fact that the individual’s authority or premise lies within himself via private judgement theology. Martin Luther certainly thought that Pope Leo X taught error with regards to indulgences which justified his departure from the Church. However Martin Luther’s private intepretation is nevertheless merely an opinion. Similiarly any so-called Traditionalist claims that a Pope has departed from orthodoxy are merely opinions.

I am glad that you brought up a Scripturial example of when a Pope or a Bishop err. I personally find it very perculiar that in the Church of Acts, not a single member of the laity be it Jews or Gentiles stood up and claimed that Peter was wrong. On the contrary, it was a fellow Apostle Paul who did so and reminded Peter of his own previous teachings. I feel that perhaps the only means of fully being 100% certain that a Pope is teaching an error unintentionally or purposely is via a Bishop Synod or a General Council who can clearly present a clear theological statement with regards to allegedly papal errors. This was done to Pope Joxn XXII. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach of a possibility of the laity themselves claiming that their own private intepretation is the true mark of orthodoxy. God is merciful and while ensure that at least one cardinal will stand up to convey a general Council to study the papal teachings. History and Scripture has proven this time and time again.

I pledge that we move away from our fallible private intepretationo f Verbum Dei and let the Church speak for herself.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

The Pope is fallible EXCEPT when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

 

[fhansen]

What if a pope made a mistake? Would that make him fallible?

Peter himself made mistakes. Paul had to rebuke him.

The Church is safeguarded from making errors in regards to its teachings on faith and morals. The pope’s infallibility is an integral part of this purpose and it means that God will ensure that the pope will not error. Thus, Peter was corrected and the right teaching prevailed. But popes can error in private thought and also in their actions or behavior, i.e. they can still sin. This means they are infallible in the teachings on faith and morals but not impeccable in themselves.

 

[vadermanu89]

And the prophets told them to crucify Christ??? Or was it their own incorrect interpretation of scripture and “tradition”?

Scripture and Tradition? The NT wasn’t even written yet, Apostolic Tradition did not exist yet and the Catholic Church has yet to be borned.

But I do find it perculiar that their High Priest managed to infallibily prophecised the Messianic Sacrifice of Christ.

 

[pprimeau1976]

And the prophets told them to crucify Christ??? Or was it their own incorrect interpretation of scripture and “tradition”?

It was totally their own incorrect interpretation.

 

[cam100]

The Pope is fallible EXCEPT when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

Yes, but the Church teaches that the pope’s authority also covers matters in which he is not infallible, but must be obeyed. In such situations the Church is prevented from dispensing evil through indefectibility. Pope Pius XII said that it is wrong to think that the Pope is owed submission only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

 

[drforjc]

Yes, but the Church teaches that the pope’s authority also covers matters in which he is not infallible, but must be obeyed. In such situations the Church is prevented from dispensing evil through indefectibility. Pope Pius XII said that it is wrong to think that the Pope is owed submission only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

Yes, and Lumen Gentium #25 reiterates this clearly.

 

[vadermanu89]

Yes, but the Church teaches that the pope’s authority also covers matters in which he is not infallible, but must be obeyed. In such situations the Church is prevented from dispensing evil through indefectibility. Pope Pius XII said that it is wrong to think that the Pope is owed submission only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.

True True. Both are right. The Pope is only infallible when he is in ex-cathedra. That has only occured twice in history. But due to his primacy, his teachings ought to be obeyed unless proven to be in error by an Ecumenical Council.

 

[cam100]

Scripture and Tradition? The NT wasn’t even written yet, Apostolic Tradition did not exist yet and the Catholic Church has yet to be borned.

The Jews had scripture, and Christ referred to it often. Today, we call it the Old Testament. They also had tradition which were religious teachings not in the Old Testament, but still passed down through generations. I used quotes around it in my previous post to differentiate it from the Tradition of the New Testament.

 

[vadermanu89]

The Jews had scripture, and Christ referred to it often. Today, we call it the Old Testament. They also had tradition which were religious teachings not in the Old Testament, but still passed down through generations. I used quotes around it in my previous post to differentiate it from the Tradition of the New Testament.

Ohh thanks for the clarification!

 

[cam100]

The Pope is only infallible when he is in ex-cathedra. That has only occured twice in history.

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily limit it to these two decalarations. The Church has never explicitly stated which declarations are ex-cathedra and which were not, although the two you mentioned are universally accepted as such. But there are probably others as well. I recall seeing an old book that listed about 12 documents that many theologians believe are infallible.

 

[SemperFidelis]

What about St. Athanasius? 99% of the Church was Arian, and even one Pope was against him. He had his own “private interpretation” of Tradition, but in the end, the Church would later uphold his private interpretation as orthodox.

 

[cam100]

What about St. Athanasius? 99% of the Church was Arian, and even one Pope was against him. He had his own “private interpretation” of Tradition, but in the end, the Church would later uphold his private interpretation as orthodox.

I can’t locate the source just now, (I’ll try to find it) but I recall that the “99%” is a literary exaggeration. And the letter against St. Athanasius from Pope Liberius is suspect, with many historians doubting its authenticity and all in agreement that, if true, the pope signed under duress. In any event, Pope Liberius did not teach Arianism, so it was not St. Anthanasius’ teachings against the teachings of the pope, as some have attempted to portray the situation.

 

[vadermanu89]

What about St. Athanasius? 99% of the Church was Arian, and even one Pope was against him. He had his own “private interpretation” of Tradition, but in the end, the Church would later uphold his private interpretation as orthodox.

I wouldn’t say 99%. That is grossly exaggerated. It was mainly the Eastern Churches and various western bishops. Pope Julius, Pope Liberius and Pope Damasus later were both highly orthodox and did preach the truth.

Your argument -

i) Nicea taught X
ii) Decades later, 99% of the Church held Y
iii) Athanasius used private intepretation to deem X as true
iv) Since Athanasius used private intepretation then, the Traditionalist private intepretation is valid now.
v) Implied - Luther’s private judgement theology is valid.

The problem lies in ii which inevitably causes the other points to be flawed as well. You are assuming that the Magisterium in that period has taught Y. You have failed to distinguish the fact that while most of the Bishops did believe in heresy, the Magisterium as a teaching body never once taught Arianism. Members of the Church may have taught Arianism but the Church never did. As a result, Athanasius was merely following and exhorting the teachings of the Popes at that time and the Magisterium teachings. He did not engage in private intepretation of Nicea and Scripture. He stuck with the intepretation of the living magisterium and was in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

On the other hand, his behavious is strikingly catholic when he chose to constantly communicate with Pope Julius instead of taking actions into his own hand. Athanasius did not condemn the Church for his excommunication, instead he calmly followed canonical laws and appealed to the Pope of Rome who declared him orthodox and supported him against Arianism.

The difference with the Traditionalist Movement is that in this time, the members of the Church did not only believe in X, the Magisterium herself taught X via the Ecumenical Council and 4 successive Popes. As a result, most Traditionalist, believeing that their intepretation Y is true, has anointed themselves as their own Popes since their intepretation is now the true mark of orthodoxy.

Hence in short -

i) Ecumenical Council V2 and 4 Popes intepretate doctrines to be Y
ii) Traditionalist intepretate Traditiona and Scripture to be X via private judgement
iii) Traditionalist claims V2 is in heresy since it contradicts X