Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

[dts]

michaelp:

I am always leary to part with any tradition, understanding that my own bias and subjectivity cannot be given too much credit. I would never disagree with the fact that the church, as expressed throughout history, has authority to which we are obligated to submit to a large degree. I would just disagee with the belief that it has infallible authority. I have not seen the justification for this.

I am in RCIA so I am a neophyte. The infallibility issue has been one of the hardest for me to accept. I am still struggling with it to some extent, simply, because I don’t see its historical continuity. It is dependent on a certain understanding of the “development of doctrine” and it must be deduced. However, it has not stopped me from becoming Catholic.

Here are a few points to consider in dealing with the issue:

1). Papal Authority Clearly Exists. History clearly supports Papal authority. I think it is also supported in Scripture, especially when viewed in the light of history. The truly honest and informed debates are about the nature of papal authority, not whether it exists. The Reformation rejection of papal authority is a radical break in historical continuity.

1. Development of Doctrine. Doctrine clearly develops. Protestants agree on this, even if they refuse to admit it. The question is what are the limits on the development of doctrine. When does a thing cease to evolve and become something novel?

3). Scope of Infallibility is Limited. When considering the matter of Papal infallibility remember, it is fairly limited in scope. It only pertains to faith and morals (not discipline). It is a negative charism. The deposit of faith cannot be added to. It can only be clarified. The Pope has purported two speak infallibly on only two occasions - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

4). Suppose the Catholic Church is Wrong. If the Catholic Church is wrong about papal infallibility, then that just proves it is not infallible. Inaccuracy on this matter would not ipso facto negate the papal authority or the church’s authority in other areas. My argument here is Pascalian in nature. E.g., if the atheist is wrong, he’s in big trouble in the afterlife. If the Christian is wrong about the afterlife, then so what?

5). Ultimate Authority Rests on Christ’s Promise. . Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. Does this mean that the Pope is infallible? Catholics argue yes, but there is a lot of deduction involved and the dogma is dependent on the nature of the development of doctrine. See the Catholic Answers paper on Papal Infallibility:
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

If the Pope is the highest authority in the earthly church subject to Christ, then he is the final appeal and it is at that point that Christ’s promise really kicks in. In the Catholic view, faith in the papal infallibility rests on Christ’s word to preserve His church. It does not rest on any man who might hold the papal office.

6). Consider the Record. At times, the papacy has been filled with men of low character. And, the office has been subject to continual attack (internal, external, spiritual, military, political, fiscal etc . . . ) since the first century. No doubt there have been spiritual low tides as there have been spiritual high tides. However, preservation of major church dogmas has been truly remarkable.

7). Practical Personal Advice. Set the issue of papal infallibility aside for a time. Honestly explore the other Catholic dogmas, especially those pertaining to the sacraments and the Eucharist. Work through the Marian dogmas. If you are unconvinced of the authenticity of other dogmas, there is no need to deal with papal infallibility. If you are convinced of them, then deal with infallibility. By nature, it is more difficult.

 

[twf]

I decided to reproduce the PM I sent Michael on the thread, as it still appears to be active.

Hi. I was just looking at your thread on “sola scriptura”. As a former Protestant, I found your explanation and understanding of the concept very foreign. I have never encountered your belief system before. (I mean no offence by this, it’s a very interesting concept you have). This is certainly not the orthodox Protestant understanding of sola scriptura. What denomination do you belong to? Or perhaps you are non-denominational…but either way, do you know other Protestants who also believe like you do? (That there can be other revelation, but it must be verified by miracles). In my experience, Protestants generally believe that there was no more Divine Revelation after the Apostolic age…and thus “sola scriptura” is literal. There is nothing else, and never will be. I think you would find this is common to most groups from Baptists to Methodists to Lutherans to Presbyterians.

This is also the Catholic teaching, as far as the end of Divine Revelation is concerned. The Church can not reveal new revelations from God. She is not a prophet in that sense. Centuries a go, within the first couple centuries in fact, the Church ruled that public revelation had ceased with the close of the Apostolic era. The Church is simply the Spirit-empowered interpreter and authentic teacher of the Faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles. Under the guidance of the Spirit She can reach a further understanding of the deposit of Faith, but she can never add or substract from it. All Catholic dogmas, currently defined, and those which will be defined in the future, must be contained in some basic form in Sacred Tradition. They must be either explicit in the original deposit of Faith, or a natural development thereof, as the Spirit leads.

You said that signs and wonders verify the authority of a prophet. You are correct that is the model God has generally used. First Christ, and then the Apostles demonstrated their divine authority by performing signs and wonders. Christ, through the Apostles built a Church. He promised that this Church would never fall. The Apostles who’s divine authority was verified by signs and wonders, as we have established, passed on a deposit of Faith to their disciples, both by word of mouth and by letter, as the Apostle said (2 Thess. 2:15). The Apostles, by their authority, entrusted their ministry to men who would continue their mission as shepherds of Christ’s flock. This can already be seen in the ordination of such men as Timothy and Titus, who possessed authority superior to that of a presbyter but who were not among the original apostles. The Apostle instructs Timothy to entrust the ministry of teaching to faithful men, which is probably an allusion to apostolic succession (or at the very least, to continue the practice of ordaining presbyters) (2 Tim 2:1-2).

St. Clement, who held the Chair of Peter in the late first century, and who wrote when the Apostle John was likely still alive, explains that the Apostles, who’s authority we can not question, did indeed entrust their ministry to other men, with instructions that this second generation of shepherds shall do the same, and so on down through the centuries. The authority of the bishops need not be verified by outward signs and wonders, as the authority of Christ and the Apostles is certain, and it is this apostolic authority that in which the bishops of today share.

(continued)

 

[twf]

(Continued)

This being said, many miracles have happened, and continue to happen, throughout the history of the Church. (Of course, the most important miracles, however, are not visible signs and wonders, but the consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and the absolution of sins in the confessional). Our Lady is one such example. 70 000 souls witnessed the miracles she promised at Fatima earlier this past century. The sun moved towards the earth, appearing to move in a supernatural fashion, the rain dried up, and people were healed. Even facist officials witnessed the sign in the heavens. These sorts of signs God sends us from time to time to remind us that He did establish a Church, which continues to authentically interpret Scripture and Tradition. These signs are helpful and edifying, but they are not necessary, as the authority of the Church has already been verified by the works of Christ and the Apostles 2000 years a go. The Church is an organic entity.

You said that the teaching of a prophet who’s authority is verified by signs and wonders must not be contrary to the teaching of Scripture (previously revealed Truth). Who then is the authentic interpreter of previous Revelation to accurately ensure that ‘new revelations’ are accurate?

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts on the matter.

Hope to hear from you soon.

In Christ,
Tyler

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.”

Sorry, but I don’t see any sign of that unification of the Holy Spirit in Protestant churches. Now, I don’t expect unity on non-essential matters (matters of local traditions, etc.), but if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be unifying Protestants in essential matters, then either He is doing a lousy job, or Protestants are missing something. I think the answer lies with the latter, not the former. If one Protestant denomination says that Baptism is regenerative, and another says that it is not, wouldn’t that be a rather important item to iron out? If “once saved, always saved” is held by some Protestants to be true, but not by others, wouldn’t that be a rather important item to iron out?

It is true that you have seen many different opinions here from Catholics, but perhaps you aren’t aware of the differences between Tradition (big “T”) and tradition (little “t”). Catholics can argue and debate all they want about the latter while remaining good Catholics.

You ask, “How do you (RCCs) interpret the tradition?”. The answer is, of course, that we don’t interpret big “T” Tradition, the Magisterium does. When you then ask further, “who interprets the Magisterium?”, the answer is still, the Magisterium: as someone else has mentioned, if something is unclear, clarification is given. Now, at some point, Michael, common sense has to apply—your arguement of infinite regression of interpretation is “valid” on a purely theoretical level, but fails the common-sense test miserably. Your argument, applied to day-to-day interactions, let alone internet theological discussions, would render human interaction impossible: just what do your posts mean? Who is going to interpret your words to me? Who is going to interpret that person’s words?

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote: “What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.”

Sorry, but I don’t see any sign of that unification of the Holy Spirit in Protestant churches. Now, I don’t expect unity on non-essential matters (matters of local traditions, etc.), but if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be unifying Protestants in essential matters, then either He is doing a lousy job, or Protestants are missing something. I think the answer lies with the latter, not the former. If one Protestant denomination says that Baptism is regenerative, and another says that it is not, wouldn’t that be a rather important item to iron out? If “once saved, always saved” is held by some Protestants to be true, but not by others, wouldn’t that be a rather important item to iron out?

It is true that you have seen many different opinions here from Catholics, but perhaps you aren’t aware of the differences between Tradition (big “T”) and tradition (little “t”). Catholics can argue and debate all they want about the latter while remaining good Catholics.

You ask, “How do you (RCCs) interpret the tradition?”. The answer is, of course, that we don’t interpret big “T” Tradition, the Magisterium does. When you then ask further, “who interprets the Magisterium?”, the answer is still, the Magisterium: as someone else has mentioned, if something is unclear, clarification is given. Now, at some point, Michael, common sense has to apply—your arguement of infinite regression of interpretation is “valid” on a purely theoretical level, but fails the common-sense test miserably. Your argument, applied to day-to-day interactions, let alone internet theological discussions, would render human interaction impossible: just what do your posts mean? Who is going to interpret your words to me? Who is going to interpret that person’s words?

I am so sorry that I am unable to respond to many of the GREAT arguments that were made above. Thanksgiving break is about over and I am going to have to slow down here.

But I will say to Sherlock that this idea of unity confuses me. You see, Protestant to not look at the Catholic church and see an entity of believers that are unified like you believe yourselves to be. Again, I see very little unity on these threads.

1. What is better, unity in actuality or unity in theory? unity in heartfelt belief or unity in confession? Cerianly it would be unity in actuality and hearfelt belief. Theory and confession are only the means to bring true unity. They are meaningless if there is not true unity. Right?
2. What about Vatican II. Catholics are not unified on their interpretation of it. That is why this thread was started.
3. What about “outside the church there is no salvation.” If that is not essential, I don’t know what is. There is not unity here among the Roman Catholic laity. If you say that it is just some people who interpret it wrong, then we have moved back to square one of this tread.
4. What you have to ask yourself is this: Was Christ’s prayer for unity an ontological one or a functional one? In other words, did Christ pray for the Church to be unified in essence by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as I believe) or in every confession that is made? (Which is obviously not the case as is demonstrated by this debate.) I believe that all those who have trusted in Christ are ontologically one by virtue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Hence there is only one true Church–the Body of Christ (an ontological definition, not functional).

 

[michaelp]

1. Protestants are united on much more than you think (although this is not a burden of my argument since we believe that the unity is an ontological unity, just a side note). We agree on who Christ is, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the second coming, that salvation is by faith alone, that the Scriptures have primary authority in our lives, the necessity of belonging to a local church, that the church is one, holy, apostolic church, that we cannot listen to Rock and Roll (just kidding), that God wants us to trust Him no matter what, that Christ rose from the grave, that He died for our sins, that we are sinners, I could go on and on. Read a comparison between all of the Protestant confessions. There are so many things in Scripture that are so clear that we do not need an outside interpreter to come and tell us what to believe. They are clear. It is called the perspicuity of Scripture.

I believe in unity among diversity. God has obviously not wanted everyone to agree upon everything throughout history. This is made clear from a reading of Church history. If He did, He is a big Guy. He could probebly bring it about.

Michael

 

[MariaG]

posted by michael

But I will say to Sherlock that this idea of unity confuses me. You see, Protestant to not look at the Catholic church and see an entity of believers that are unified like you believe yourselves to be. Again, I see very little unity on these threads.

This is because Christ told us to let the weeds and the wheat grow together.

It is also because you probably do not have a good handle on the difference between dogma, for example the Assumption of Mary into heaven. And practice like married priests. The first one you must believe as a Catholic, the second one is open to debate. What you probably see is debate on the second and translate it to lack of unity.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[ChrisR246]

This is what the laws of Duet. were given for. God was trying to tell people of all time that not just anyone could speak on His behalf. They would have to verify their words through both orthodoxy (Deut. 13) and some type of sign and wonder (Deut 18). I think that you would agree that God still cares about His word and does not want it misused.

I’m confused by this…Does this mean that, in your opinion, before I engage in discussion of scripture with a fellow Christian I should ask them for "some type of sign and wonder " and they should do the same of me? And if neither of us can provide one, we should just not talk about it?

 

[michaelp]

ChrisR246:

I’m confused by this…Does this mean that, in your opinion, before I engage in discussion of scripture with a fellow Christian I should ask them for "some type of sign and wonder " and they should do the same of me? And if neither of us can provide one, we should just not talk about it?

Good question. The answer is no. Unless you are claiming to speak for God about the interpretation of the Scripture.

You “see in a mirror dimly” as do the rest of us. We are fallible people trying our best to understand an infallible God. Most things should be clear to you since God did not write in some “angelic” language. Thankfully, He contextualized His message to us. For the most part, a comon sense hermenutic will be sufficient for anyone.

You are created in God’s image and are able and responsible to understand the Scriptures. Just “pick up and read.”

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Good question. The answer is no. Unless you are claiming to speak for God about the interpretation of the Scripture.

You “see in a mirror dimly” as do the rest of us. We are fallible people trying our best to understand an infallible God. Most things should be clear to you since God did not write in some “angelic” language. Thankfully, He contextualized His message to us. For the most part, a comon sense hermenutic will be sufficient for anyone.

You are created in God’s image and are able and responsible to understand the Scriptures. Just “pick up and read.”

Then, why do you read John 6 and believe that Jesus is not talking about his literal body and blood, when I do?

Peace and God bless.

Eric

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

Then, why do you read John 6 and believe that Jesus is not talking about his literal body and blood, when I do?

Peace and God bless.

Eric

Hmmm. Good queston. It is one of hermenuetics that is a whole other issue.

Short answer: For the same reason that I do not believe that Christ is a door that swings on hinges that lets sheep in and out:

John 10:7
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

Hope this helps.

Michael

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Hmmm. Good queston. It is one of hermenuetics that is a whole other issue.

Short answer: For the same reason that I do not believe that Christ is a door that swings on hinges that lets sheep in and out:

John 10:7
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

Hope this helps.

Michael

Indeed. So you see my point. Understanding scripture is not as easy as you seem to indicate it is. Nor, is understanding Christ’s teachings, which is why an infallible, authoritative church is so vital to one living a Christian life.

Peace be with you.

Eric

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

Indeed. So you see my point. Understanding scripture is not as easy as you seem to indicate it is. Nor, is understanding Christ’s teachings, which is why an infallible, authoritative church is so vital to one living a Christian life.

Peace be with you.

Eric

Actually, I was being kind of sarcastic. I was not meaning to imply that this was too difficult (at least to me). Most things are very easy to understand.

Peace be to you too my friend,

Michael

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Actually, I was being kind of sarcastic. I was not meaning to imply that this was too difficult (at least to me). Most things are very easy to understand.

Peace be to you too my friend,

Michael

Ahhh…but that’s the point–most things aren’t necessarily easy to understand. When Jesus states in John 6 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you,” Catholics understand he is referring to the Eucharist. So, Michael, are you not taking a risk in disregarding the direction of Christ to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

In my opinion, it is a mistake to think that the teachings of Christ are easy to understand. Surely, some are straightforward and simple, but others are not, such as the above example. Heck, his disciples continually needed him to explain his teachings. Are you saying that you know more than the disciples?

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

Ahhh…but that’s the point most things aren’t necessarily easy to understand. When Jesus states in John 6 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you,” Catholics understand he is referring to the Eucharist. So, Michael, are you not taking a risk in disregarding the direction of Christ to east his flesh and drink his blood?

In my opinion, it is a mistake to think that the teachings of Christ are easy to understand. Surely, some are straightforward and simple, but others are not, such as the above example. Heck, his disciples continually needed him to explain his teachings. Are you saying that you know more than the disciples?

Peace and God bless!

Eric

Again, I don’t think that this one is much more difficult to interpret than the fact that Jesus is not a literal gate. Do you believe that Christ is a literal gate? If not, why? Because the church tells you or because comon sense tells you?

Christ interpreted most things to the disciples in the Scriptures themselves. They did not have all of the forthcoming revelation to refer to when interpreting Christ. Remember, they were coming from a worldview that did not see a crucified Christ. This is the cause of most of their confusion. They obviously cleared this confusion up later as described in other books of the Bible which they wrote.

I should not, however, allow myself to be backed up into a corner to where I am misunderstood as saying that ALL Scripture is easy to interpret. It is not. What I am saying is that with the things that matter most, the Bible is increadibly clear and forthright. Why would God be obscure about these things? Can’t He speak in a language that we understand? If not, why write in the comon language of the day? Why not write in an angelic language and then have an institutionalized Church set up so that they could interpret it for us?

Granted, interpretation takes comon sense and sweat, but this is not above you. You are created in the image of God. You have great ability.

Michael

 

[Beaver]

michaelp:

You are created in God’s image and are able and responsible to understand the Scriptures. Just “pick up and read.”

I disagree, the Scriptures assume you have knowledge of the current avents of the time inwhich that scripture was written and you do not. It does not provide all of this information and to make a correct interpetation this information is necessary. Nice try!

 

[michaelp]

Beaver:

I disagree, the Scriptures assume you have knowledge of the current avents of the time inwhich that scripture was written and you do not. It does not provide all of this information and to make a correct interpetation this information is necessary. Nice try!

If this were the criteria, then no ancient history at all could be understood. I don’t think that you are willing to go there.

Again, it takes work, but history can be understood. There are alot of good commentaries (some by Roman Catholics) that seek to understand the historical circumstances of the day. They do a great job. Here are some links to some:

christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=Bible+background+commentary&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1&Go.x=10&Go.y=10

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Again, I don’t think that this one is much more difficult to interpret than the fact that Jesus is not a literal gate. Do you believe that Christ is a literal gate? If not, why? Because the church tells you or because comon sense tells you?

Christ interpreted most things to the disciples in the Scriptures themselves. They did not have all of the forthcoming revelation to refer to when interpreting Christ. Remember, they were coming from a worldview that did not see a crucified Christ. This is the cause of most of their confusion. They obviously cleared this confusion up later as described in other books of the Bible which they wrote.

I should not, however, allow myself to be backed up into a corner to where I am misunderstood as saying that ALL Scripture is easy to interpret. It is not. What I am saying is that with the things that matter most, the Bible is increadibly clear and forthright. Why would God be obscure about these things? Can’t He speak in a language that we understand? If not, why write in the comon language of the day? Why not write in an angelic language and then have an institutionalized Church set up so that they could interpret it for us?

Granted, interpretation takes comon sense and sweat, but this is not above you. You are created in the image of God. You have great ability.

Michael

Certainly I can interpret, but I do so at my own risk. And, if I were to listen to my common sense, it would tell me that God would not create billions of people only to have a large number of them cast into Hell. But, clearly this is what Jesus taught. So, I have to trust the teachings of Christ over my own common sense.

This risk of a person interpreting scripture for himself becomes quite apparent when many Christians interpret the scriptures and come away with the notion that baptism is only a symbol and not necessary for salation, despite that Jesus says in Matthew 28: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit” and Peter says in 1 Peter 3 that “this prefigures baptism, which now saves you.”

You can see the dangers in relying on your own interpretation, especially when your immortal soul is on the line. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. In fact, the only thing we can say in regards to those who aren’t baptized is that we “entrust them to the mercy of God.” (CCC # 1261)

You seem to indicate we Catholics are blindly following the teachings of a fallible church, when in reality we are simply doing what Christ asked us to do.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

Certainly I can interpret, but I do so at my own risk. And, if I were to listen to my common sense, it would tell me that God would not create billions of people only to have a large number of them cast into Hell. But, clearly this is what Jesus taught. So, I have to trust the teachings of Christ over my own common sense.

This risk of a person interpreting scripture for himself becomes quite apparent when many Christians interpret the scriptures and come away with the notion that baptism is only a symbol and not necessary for salation, despite that Jesus says in Matthew 28: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit” and Peter says in 1 Peter 3 that “this prefigures baptism, which now saves you.”

You can see the dangers in relying on your own interpretation, especially when your immortal soul is on the line. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. In fact, the only thing we can say in regards to those who aren’t baptized is that we “entrust them to the mercy of God.” (CCC # 1261)

You seem to indicate we Catholics are blindly following the teachings of a fallible church, when in reality we are simply doing what Christ asked us to do.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

First, let me ask you these two questions again:

1. Do you believe that Christ is a literal door that swings on hinges and lets literal sheep in an out? Justify your answer whatever it may be.
2. Quote from earlier post: “I should not, however, allow myself to be backed up into a corner to where I am misunderstood as saying that ALL Scripture is easy to interpret. It is not. What I am saying is that with the things that matter most, the Bible is increadibly clear and forthright. Why would God be obscure about these things? Can’t He speak in a language that we understand? If not, why write in the comon language of the day? Why not write in an angelic language and then have an institutionalized Church set up so that they could interpret it for us?”

Thanks for you dilegence in this conversation. It is much appreciated.

Michael

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

First, let me ask you these two questions again:

1. Do you believe that Christ is a literal door that swings on hinges and lets literal sheep in an out? Justify your answer whatever it may be.
2. Quote from earlier post: “I should not, however, allow myself to be backed up into a corner to where I am misunderstood as saying that ALL Scripture is easy to interpret. It is not. What I am saying is that with the things that matter most, the Bible is increadibly clear and forthright. Why would God be obscure about these things? Can’t He speak in a language that we understand? If not, why write in the comon language of the day? Why not write in an angelic language and then have an institutionalized Church set up so that they could interpret it for us?”

Thanks for you dilegence in this conversation. It is much appreciated.

Michael

I’ll happily your first question when you make it less symbolic and more straightfoward. What exactly are you asking here? I assume you are referring the concept of “once saved, always saved,” but I would request a clearer question.

As for number two, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inspired, but written by men, who used the language and metaphor of the day. So, obviously, it is not necessarily easy to understand the meanings of the words of the New Testament written by a dozen authors 2000 years ago. But, to answer your question more directly, God is not obscure, and He does speak in a language we understand. He came down to Earth to save us and give us a church, not a book. And, the church speaks in a very clear language.

I’ll await clarification on the first question.

I remain, your brother in Christ,

Eric