Scripture and Tradition
The Bible and
Tradition in Roman Catholicism
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson
[This article is from chapter 6 of Sola Scriptura! The
Protestant
Position on the Bible is Copy Righted 1995 by Soli Deo
Gloria
Publications. All rights reserved. Printed in the United
States.
Used by permission of author]
The year 1996 marks the four hundred and fiftieth
anniversary
of the death of Martin Luther, whose famous Ninety-Five
Theses
sparked off a religious fire in Europe which the Roman
Catholic
Church was unable to extinguish. The theological conflict
which
ensued has often been characterized as focusing on the
so-called
four- fold "alones" of the Reformation: sola
gratia, solo Christo,
sola fide, sola Scriptura -- salvation is by grace alone,
in Christ
alone, by faith alone, and all that is necessary for
salvation is
taught in Scripture alone. Each of these principles, and
certainly
all four together, served as a canon by which the teaching
of the
Roman Catholic Church was assessed and found to be wanting.
In these great slogans the nouns -- grace, Christ, faith,
Scripture
-- were and are of great importance. But in each case the
qualifying sola (alone) was in some ways even more
significant.
For Rome had always taught that salvation was by grace
through
faith in Christ, and had always held that the Bible was the
Word of
God -- but never alone. To speak of sola Scriptura has
almost
always been viewed in Rome as a prescription for spiritual
anarchy in which everyone would create for himself the
message
of the Bible. The only safeguard against this was the
living
tradition of the Church viewed as a further channel of the
divine
revelation.
The printing press (and therefore widespread access to the
Bible)
is a Renaissance phenomenon, and literacy levels were low
in the
Middle Ages. But this alone does not account for the
Reformation
horror stories about the large-scale ignorance of the Bible
among
both priest and people. Nevertheless it would be
uncharitable to
extrapolate from those dark days to the present day as
though no
counter-reformations had taken place in the interim. And it
would
reveal considerable ignorance on the part of Protestants if
they
did not recognize that in the past century a widespread
interest in
the Bible has developed within the Roman Catholic Church.
Can it be, then, that we now face a new situation in Roman
Catholicism? For the first time since the Reformation
"common"
Bibles are being published. Moreover, not only within the
World
Council of Churches (largely dominated by liberal
theology), but
also within evangelicalism substantial rapprochement has
been
viewed as possible in our own time. So it is timely to ask:
Has
something unprecedented happened within Roman Catholicism's
interpretation of the Bible so that the old differences
can, at last,
be laid to rest?
During the past century and a quarter -- from the First
Vatican
Council (1870) to the publication of the Pontifical
Biblical
Commission's important work The Interpretation of the Bible
in
the Church (1993) -- the Roman Magisterium has published a
series of significant statements on the nature,
interpretation and
role of the Bible in the Church. These began in the
nineteenth
century in the widespread crisis for faith created by the
effect of
Enlightenment thought and thereafter by the onslaught of
scientific humanism which found its impetus in the
evolutionism of
the late nineteenth century. Pronouncements have continued
to
appear up to the present day, when the Vatican has sought
to wed
together contemporary historical-critical methods of
biblical
interpretation with the ancient dogmas of the Church. Each
of
these statements is of interest on its own account;
together they
mark a development which has been significant for the work
of
large numbers of Roman Catholic biblical scholars.
The story of this development is not well known among
Protestants. Indeed probably most Roman Catholics are
relatively
unfamiliar with it. It is worth narrating, at least in
broad outline.
Developments in Rome In 1893 Pope Leo XIII issued the
Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus. It was the first
wide
ranging attempt of the Roman Church to deal specifically
with the
impact of the critical methodologies which had come to
characterize theological scholarship in the latter part of
the
nineteenth century. In them the Bible was treated as an
ancient
Near Eastern text and assessed from the standpoint of
critical
historical investigation and linguistic and religious
development.
In sophisticated theological terms, Scripture's
"humanity" was
explored (and, in fact, its divinity was increasingly
ignored and
denied).
Against this background, in which the idea of human
evolution
played a major role, Providentissimus Deus insisted on a
long-standing principle of Christian orthodoxy: If God is
Author of
both Nature and Scripture, these two "books" of
divine revelation
must be in harmony with each other. The encyclical
emphasized
that there could therefore be no ultimate conflict between
the
Bible and either the natural sciences or historical
investigation. It
urged both theologians and scientists to respect the limits
of their
own spheres. In addition, biblical exegetes who employed
the
fruits of secular scientific and historical studies were
counseled to
remember the importance of the analogia fidei (analogy of
faith):
the Scriptures should always be interpreted in keeping with
the
apostolic rule of faith to which the church subscribed. The
last
word on what the Bible taught lay with the Roman
Magisterium.
Providentissimus Deus was thus characterized by a
conservative
(some would have said "reactionary") character,
expressed
particularly in its negative criticisms of the way in which
historical-critical principles were being used. The
underlying
anxiety of the entire encyclical was that the results of
this critical
movement would prove to be injurious to the faith of which
the
Church was called to be the guardian, not the destroyer.
Fifty years later the face of Europe had changed
dramatically.
The Great War had been fought from 1914 -- 18; the Second
World War of 1939 -- 45 was in full course. The misplaced
and
anthropocentric optimism of nineteenth-century liberal
theology
had collapsed, shattered before the enormity of human need;
the
notion that humanity was evolving from a lower to a higher
moral
condition had been dealt an embarrassing blow. The
"gospel" of
the universal Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man
stood exposed in all of its inherent poverty. There arose a
new
sense of need for some powerful word from God. In
Protestantism
the "theology of crisis" emerged and what came to
be known as
the "Biblical Theology" movement was stirring
into life.
Significant developments had also taken place within the
world of
Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. The Pontifical
Biblical
Commission was created by Leo XIII in 1902. In the wake of
Providentissimus Deus, its earliest responses (responsa) to
questions of biblical interpretation were characterized by
negative
reaction to higher criticism. But in due season (it was
completely
reorganized in 1971 following the Second Vatican Council)
it would
prove to be a spearhead of the new way of reading the
Bible.
In 1943, Pius XII issued his Encyclical Letter Divino
Afflante
Spiritu. It was promulgated when the Second World War was
in
full flood, but not until the turn of the decade did its
full impact
begin to be felt. Now a more positive note was struck. For
one
thing, Roman Catholic biblical scholars were largely set
free from
the burden which the Church had carried for centuries: the
use of
the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible). It
had been
regarded as the authoritative text for ecclesiastical use
since the
time of the Council of Trent (even now it was still
declared to be
"free from all error in matters of faith and
morals").
In a manner reminiscent of the humanists of the
Renaissance,
with the motto ad fonies ("back to the original
sources"), Roman
Catholic scholars now enjoyed a new freedom and fresh
impetus
to gain and employ expertise in the biblical languages to
enable a
true understanding of the text of Scripture. A new value
was
recognized in the use of such tools as textual, literary
and form
criticism. The importance of history, ethnology,
archaeology "and
other sciences" was affirmed. The "true
meaning," indeed the
so-called "literal sense" of Scripture was to be
sought as well as
the "spiritual significance." Precritical ways of
reading the Bible
were widely (but not entirely) replaced by the new
approach. Now
a clear distinction was made between the
"meaning" of the
original text and the contemporary application
("significance") of
it. Principles of interpretation which had long been
familiar to
Protestants were now increasingly recognized as essential
to
proper biblical exegesis. The historical-critical method
had come
to stay.
All this was encouraged (it could scarcely have been
prevented,
but the genius of Rome, unlike Wittenberg and Geneva, has
always been its ability to hold opposite tendencies
together). The
underlying principle was that the Scriptures cannot be
charged
with error. Supposed errors in Scripture, it was held,
could be
resolved by a right reading of the text. Any tensions
between
Scripture and "reality" could always be resolved
in favor of
biblical integrity. Harmonization was an essential key to
reading
the Bible as a modern Catholic.
Times change, and we change with them. The second half of
the
twentieth century has seen continued movement in Roman
Catholic biblical scholarship. This has not been without
ecclesiastical bloodletting (at one point professors at the
Biblical
Institute were banned from teaching!). But the overall
result has
been that some of the most erudite biblical studies
published
during this period carry the imprimatur and nihil obstat
which
identify them as the work of Roman Catholic scholars which
has
been declared "free of doctrinal or moral error."
The most recent succinct expression of this development can
be
seen in the Pontifical Biblical Commission's statement on
biblical
interpretation, published in 1993. Here the fruits of
critical
scholarship set within the context of the Church's
tradition are
warmly welcomed. Indeed, strikingly -- in view of the
importance
of the principle of harmonization at all costs which marked
earlier
Roman Catholic pronouncements -- it is now of a
Protestant-style
fundamentalist approach to Scripture that the Church seems
to
have become most critical, and perhaps most fearful.
But why should this development since 1870 be of interest
to
Protestant Christians? For a reason which lies on the
surface of
much of the very best Catholic biblical scholarship. There
is a
clear recognition in Roman Catholic biblical scholarship
that there
is a gulf -- or at least a distance -- between what the
text of Sacred
Scripture states and the teaching of the Sacred Tradition
of the
Church. There is also recognition that the words of Jesus
recorded in John 16:12 -- 15, often taken as a specific
promise
guaranteeing the truth and infallibility of Sacred
Tradition, do not
refer to such Tradition at all.(1) By necessity, therefore,
some
Roman Catholic interpreters of Scripture have found it
necessary
to develop a novel view of the relationship between
Scripture and
Tradition in order to hold them Together: Tradition adds to
Scripture, but Scripture is "open" to Tradition.
Can this contention be readily illustrated from Roman
Catholic
biblical scholarship?
In critical discussion it is always a great temptation to
treat the
most extreme examples of the opposition's viewpoint as
though
they were representative. That is an unworthy tactic and
often
merely hardens prejudices on both sides. In this context,
however,
the point can readily be illustrated not from the worst
historical
examples of Roman Catholic biblical interpretation, but --
albeit
from a necessarily limited sample -- by what is widely
regarded as
its best.
It would be hard to find a better illustration of the new
approach to
the Bible in Roman Catholicism than the recent widely
acclaimed
commentary on Romans by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Professor
Fitzmyer is a leading Roman Catholic scholar whose
outstanding
academic gifts pervade his almost 800-page commentary.
While it
is often true in the matter of commentaries that "one
man's meat
is another man's poison," it is impossible to imagine
any student
of Scripture failing to find considerable profit from the
erudition
and stimulus of Fitzmyer's work. Raymond E. Brown, the
outstanding American Catholic Johannine scholar, describes
Fitzmyer as "the most learned N[ew] T[estament]
scholar on the
American Catholic scene."(2) Elsewhere he says of his
work on
Romans that "It can lay fair claim to being the best
commentary
on Romans in English."(3) Even those who might award
the palm
to someone other than Fitzmyer recognize the value of the
commendation.
But it is precisely because of the quality of this
commentary that
its contents are so significant. A desire for careful
exegesis
coupled with faithfulness to the Magisterium of the Church
leads
Fitzmyer (a Jesuit) to state, albeit with appropriate
sensitivity and
discretion, that the teaching of the Scriptures cannot
simpliciter be
identified with the teachings of the Sacred Tradition. The
following
selection of illustrations will underline this.
A Roman Catholic on Romans In an extensive introductory
chapter on Pauline theology, Fitzmyer includes an essay on
faith.
In the developed theology of the medieval period,
theologians had
spoken and written much of fides caritate formata,
justifying faith
which was "faith formed by love." This, not
"faith alone,"
justifies. This view was confirmed at the Council of Trent.
Many of the Tridentine statements reveal misunderstandings
of
the teaching of Luther and the other Reformers;
nevertheless, its
teaching in this connection is clearly intended as a
rejection of the
principles the Reformers regarded as central to the gospel.
Trent's Decree on Justification reads as follows:
If anyone says that people are justified either by the sole
imputation of the righteousness (justitia) of Christ or by
the sole
remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and
charity which
is poured into their hearts through the Holy Spirit and
inheres in
them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is
only the
favour of God, let him be anathema.(4)
Rome's great fear has always been that sola fide would
breed
antinomianism and moral license. Christians, it was held,
were
preserved from this by the fact that justification takes
place
through faith which is formed by love; i.e., justification
involves
personal transformation. But, comments Fitzmyer, Paul's
notion of
faith which "blossoms" in love is to be
distinguished from this
fides caritate formata:
That is a
philosophical transposition of the Pauline
teaching --
acceptable or not depending on whether
one agrees with
the philosophy involved -- but the
genuine Pauline
idea of "faith working itself out
through
love" is implicit in Romans... he does not
equate faith
with love; nor does he ascribe to love
what he does to
faith (viz., justification, salvation),
even though he
recognizes the necessity of the two
working in
tandem. (5)
Here is an important recognition of the fact that we must
distinguish between what the Tradition has said and what
the
Scriptures actually affirm. The idea of faith and love
being
instrumental in justification cannot be read out of the
text as such.
It is no part of the exegesis of Paul's words.
Note however that Fitzmyer is careful to suggest only that
there is
distance between what is affirmed by Paul and what is
stated in
the Tradition. He does not affirm that there is any
necessary
contradiction between Scripture and Tradition.
More is to follow. Commenting on the central passage,
Romans
3:21 -- 26, Fitzmyer states that Paul here formulates
"three, or
possibly four, effects of the Christ-event [i.e., the work
of
Christ]...: justification, redemption, expiation, and
possibly
pardon" and adds, "It is important to recognize
that such effects
of the Christ-event are appropriated through faith in
Christ Jesus,
and only through faith. It is the means whereby human
beings
experience what Christ has done."(6) Here again the
Pauline text
is to be read on its own terms without recourse to
post-Pauline
developments in the Church. Fitzmyer knows that within the
Church there have always been those who have read Paul's
words
as implying the principle of sola fide. It would be quite
wrong,
however (indeed naive), to read this distancing of the
Church's
pronouncements from the statements of the biblical text as
a
capitulation to the Protestant exposition. For Fitzmyer is
no less
careful to point out the difference between the text and
the way in
which it has been interpreted within the Protestant
churches.
Within a page of the previous citation we find Professor
Fitzmyer
rejecting the interpretation of a Protestant scholar on the
grounds
that "that reading would introduce an Anselmian
distinction into
the Pauline text, which does not warrant it."(7) But
even here the
concern is to allow Paul to speak for himself in
distinction from
reading him through the eyes of the construction of a
postbiblical
tradition (in this case one which also appealed to
Protestantism).
Whether or not Fitzmyer's critique is accurate, what is at
first
sight remarkable is the way in which his recognition of
Paul's
emphasis on the unique role of faith might easily be
mistaken for
the comment of a Protestant exegete.
There are other noteworthy illustrations of an exegesis
which
self-consciously seeks to let the Scriptures speak for
themselves
apart from the. dominance of theological tradition. In this
sense
the Roman Catholic scholar is approaching the text in a
manner
similar to the Protestant.
Commenting on the words "justified freely by his
grace" in
Romans 3:24, Fitzmyer notes:
It should be superfluous to stress... that
in using
dorean and te
autou chariti, Paul is not referring to
the efficient
cause of justification by the former and
the formal
cause by the latter (as if chris were
"sanctifying grace"). That is anachronistic exegesis,
a distinction
born of later medieval and Tridentine
theology.(8)
Here again, without rejecting Tridentine teaching as such,
a
distinction is made between what the text itself states and
the
theology which has developed within the Catholic tradition.
The comments which may strike the Protestant mind as most
unexpected are to be found in Professor Fitzmyer's
exposition of
Romans 3:27 -- 31. It was in his translation of Romans 3:28
in
1522 that Luther's appeal to sola fide emerged as seminal
for the
Reformation understanding of the gospel. Fitzmyer
recognizes
that in fact this language long predates Luther and can be
found
already in the writings of the early Fathers. He frankly
states that
"in this context" Paul means "by faith
alone" although he
contends that in the Lutheran sense its use is an extension
of what
Paul says. This inevitably prompts questions as to what the
nature
of this "extension" is, and whether there is any
Roman Catholic
"sense" in which justification is genuinely
"by faith alone." But
the admission in and of itself is significant.
The same distance between Scripture and Tradition is
further
indicated when Fitzmyer turns to the exposition of Romans
5:12.
The traditional Roman Catholic view of this text is to see
here a
reference to "original" sin. This was made
explicit by the Council
of Trent, which not only set its imprimatur to this
exegesis of
Paul's words, but also forbade any other understanding of
his
statement. Fitzmyer comments:
This tradition
found its formal conciliar expression in
the Tridentine
Decretum de peccato originali, Sess.
V, 2 -- 4...
This decree gave a definitive interpretation
to the Pauline
text in the sense that his words teach a
form of the
dogma of Original Sin, a rare text that
enjoys such an
interpretation.
Care must be
taken, however, to understand what
Paul is saying
and not to transform his mode of
expression too
facilely into the precision of later
dogmatic
development... Paul's teaching is regarded
as seminal and
open to later dogmatic development,
but it does not
say all that the Tridentine decree says.
(9)
Again we can hardly avoid noting the caution which emerges
with
respect to reading Church Tradition back into Scripture.
The
dogma as such is not rejected; what is made clear is that
it is not
to be identified simpliciter with the teaching contained in
the New
Testament.
Next, in commenting on Romans 6:12, Fitzmyer alludes to the
teaching of the Council of Trent that what Paul sometimes
calls
"sin" (as, for example, in Romans 6: 12) is not
described as such
by the Roman Catholic Church, but rather is understood as
the
fomes peccati. The allusion here is to one of the most
astonishing
(and surely embarrassing) statements in the documents of
Trent,
in the Decree Concerning Original Sin:
This
concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls
sin, the holy
Synod declares that the Catholic Church
has never
understood it to be called sin, as being truly
and properly
sin in those born again, but because it is
of sin, and
inclines to sin. And if anyone is of a
contrary
sentiment, let him be anathema.(10)
Again we must not make the mistake of thinking that
Fitzmyer has
ceased to be a faithful son of the Church. For this, he
notes (in
agreement with the earlier biblical scholar M-J. Lagrange),
"might be an exact theological transposition,"
but it is a precision
not yet found in the Pauline text.
Our concern here is not to discuss the precision of the
theology
involved in this statement, but once more to underline the
gap --
although for Fitzmyer manifestly not an unbridgeable
historical
gulf -- which is fixed between the revelation as it comes
to us in
Scripture and what the Church has received as its
authoritative
Tradition.
No doubt this whole approach strikes anxiety in the hearts
of
Roman Catholics who are conservative and traditionalist
(there
are "fundamentalists" in both Roman Catholicism
and
Protestantism). They may find some relief in the way
Professor
Fitzmyer's concurrence with the Roman Tradition is given
notable
expression in his handling of Paul's teaching on
justification.
Professor Fitzmyer nuances the meaning of dikaioo in the
direction of "being made upright." Here, at
perhaps the most
critical point, his exegesis harmonizes with the Vulgate's
translation of the New Testament's dikaioo by justum
facere.
Despite the presence of Lutheran sympathizers at Trent, the
Council committed the Church irrevocably to a
transformationist
doctrine of justification:
Justification... is not the removal of our sins alone, but
also the
sanctification and renovation of the inner man
through the
willing reception of the grace and the
other gifts by
which a man from being unjust (ex
injusto)
becomes just, and from being an enemy
becomes a
friend so that he may be an heir according
to the hope of
eternal life.(11)
Even Fitzmyer's further qualification -- he notes that this
justification takes place "gratuitously through God's
powerful
declaration of acquittal" -- does not eliminate a
distinctively
Tridentine exegesis, as he makes clear:
The sinful
human being is not only "declared
upright,"
but is "made upright" (as in 5:19), for the
sinner's condition has changed. (12)
Much is at stake here. In many areas where Sacred Tradition
is
not already present and perspicuous in Sacred Scripture,
Fitzmyer
and other Roman Catholic scholars reduce the gap between
what
is taught in the biblical text and the dogma of Sacred
Tradition by
an appeal to the "open" character of biblical
teaching. In this way
they minimize the force of the Reformation criticism that
Tradition
contradicts Scripture.
Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet and His exhortation
to them
to imitate Him John 13:1 -- 15) give an example of this
"open"
character of Scripture. Foot washing might well have
developed
into a Sacrament, in a manner parallel to the development
which
took place in another "open" passage, James 5:14.
Here, "under
the Spirit-guided development of Tradition" the text
became the
basis for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.(13)
No appeal to the theory of Scripture's "open"
character can be of
service, however, in relationship to the doctrine of justification.
It
would simply not be possible for Fitzmyer at this juncture
to agree
with the Reformation exegesis of justification as
declaratory,
imputed righteousness yet appeal to the "open"
character of
Paul's teaching and to the Spirit's continuing work in the
Church
as bringing out the fullness of meaning in justification as
including
infused righteousness. For these two things stand in
contradiction.
Fitzmyer's interpretation is, nevertheless, based on an
exegetical
appeal -- to his own exegesis of Romans 5:19: "Just as
through
the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so
through
the obedience of one many will be made upright."(14)
He takes
Paul's verb kathistanai ("made") in the sense of
subjective
condition, i.e., in a transformationist sense.
Two things should be said here. First, we believe
Fitzmyer's
interpretation of Romans 5:19 can be demonstrated to be
mistaken.(15) But second, his logic is wrong. Even were
kathistanai understood in a subjective-transformationist
sense, it
does not necessarily follow that Paul's use of dikaioo is
transformationist rather than forensic and declaratory.
Consistently to interpret "justify" in the light
of this assumption is
an exegetical procedure without justification!
But even here there is a formal recognition of the
principle:
Sacred Scripture must be distinguished from Sacred
Tradition; we
should not assume that the latter is an exegesis of the
former.
Naturally Protestants view this distinction through
Protestantized
spectacles. Anyone convinced of the sole authority and
sufficiency
of Scripture is bound to ask how it is possible for a
scholar of
integrity to recognize this gap and yet to remain a
faithful Roman
Catholic.
It is too simple a construction, however, to conclude that
there is
manifest duplicity here. Rather, the general consistency
and
clarity with which Fitzmyer's exegesis illustrates the gap
between
Scripture and Tradition highlights why it is that the
Protestant
appeal to Scripture alone to refute Roman Catholic dogma
seems
to cut little ice: For Rome, neither Scripture nor
Tradition can
stand on its own. The rationale for this should now be
clear: In the
Roman Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition stands beside
Sacred
Scripture as a valid and authoritative source of divine
revelation.
In fact both emerge within one and the same context: the
Catholic
Church.
Understanding this principle helps us to see the mindset of
the
Roman Catholic Church's approach to interpreting the Bible
at
this juncture.
Scripture and Tradition For Rome, the Bible itself emerges
from
within the Church. The Church exists prior to the Bible;
the Bible
is itself an expression of the living voice of the Church
-- in its own
way it is Tradition. In the words of the recent Catechism
of the
Catholic Church, "the New Testament itself
demonstrates the
process of living Tradition."(16) The New Testament is
Tradition
-- the earliest tradition inscripturated in distinction
from the living
Tradition which arises within the ongoing life of the
Church in the
context of apostolic succession.
This perspective is well attested in the succession of
Rome's
authoritative doctrinal statements.
Appeal in this context is made to the Profession of Faith
composed in connection with the Second Council of
Constantinople (553), to the Council of Lateran (649) and
to the
Second Council of Nicea (787). It was, however, in the
context of
the Counter-Reformation that the Church's position was set
in
concrete by the Council of Trent:
The holy
ecumenical and general Council of Trent...
clearly
perceives that this truth and rule are contained
in the written
books and unwritten traditions which
have come down
to us.... Following, then, the example
of the orthodox
Fathers, it receives and venerates
with the same
sense of loyalty and reverence all the
books of the
Old and New Testaments -- for God
alone is the
author of both -- together with all the
traditions
concerning faith and morals, as coming from
the mouth of
Christ or being inspired by the Holy
Spirit and preserved in continuous
succession in the
Catholic
Church.(17)
The implication of this, specifically drawn out by the
Council itself,
was that no one should dare to interpret the Scripture in a
way
contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even
though
such interpretations are not intended for publication.
Leaving to one side the doubtful concept of "the
unanimous
consent of the Fathers," it is clear here why the
Tradition
becomes the master element in the Scripture-Tradition liaison.
Historically it has always been the case that a
"living" (in the
sense of contemporaneous) word of revelation will become
the
rule for Christians de facto (whatever may be claimed to
the
contrary). That is virtually a psychological inevitability.
In the
case of Rome, what may have begun as a limiting concept
(the
regulum fidei) developed into the master concept.
This position, with appeal to these very citations, was
later
confirmed by the Church at the First Vatican Council in the
Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (1870). A quarter of a
century
later, Providentissimus Deus (1893) appealed to the
principle of
the analogy of faith understood as the consensus fidelium
as an
essential principle for Catholic exposition. Roman Catholic
exegetes were summoned to use critical skills with the
specific
agenda of confirming the received interpretation.
All this was stated within the context of Leo XIII's
affirmation of
the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Such was the
continuing
impact of modernism, however, that within two decades the
Decree
Lamentabili (1907) was issued to stem the tide of
theological
corruption. It repudiated and condemned the view that
"The
Church's teaching office cannot, even by dogmatic
definition,
determine the genuine meaning of Sacred
Scripture."(18) As
recently as the International Theological Commission's
brief but
seminal work The Interpretation of Theological Truths
(1988)
Rome has continued to affirm that any conflict between
exegesis
and dogma is provoked by unfaithful exegesis. Genuinely
Catholic
exegesis will, by definition, always seek and find the
appropriate
harmony between biblical text and ecclesiastical dogma. In
this
light, the Pontifical Biblical Commission comments:
False paths
[i.e., in exegesis] will be avoided if
actualization
of the biblical message begins with a
correct
interpretation of the text and continues within
the stream of
the living Tradition, under the guidance
of the Church's
Magisterium.(19)
The circle of reasoning here appears to be "
Vicious."
In the nineteenth century the Magisterium rightly
recognised that
the rise of Higher Criticism and of theological Modernism
would
endanger the faith of Catholics (as it had already done
among
Protestants). But Rome faced an additional problem. The
view
that Sacred Tradition is also Revelation implies that the
Tradition
possesses the attributes of Revelation, including
infallibility and
inerrancy. Consequently the Tradition had to be regarded as
infallible. The inevitable correlate of this emerged in
Vatican I's
Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus in which papal
infallibility
was promulgated as a "divinely revealed dogma".
The Pope's ex
cathedra definitions of faith were stated to be
"irreformable of
themselves and not from the consent of the Church"
("I myself
am the Tradition," commented Pius IX). The anathema
sit was
pronounced on any who might "contradict this our
definition."
The later pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council
continued basically to affirm what was historically
regarded as the
Tridentine view of the relationship between Scripture and
Tradition reaffirmed in Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution
on the
Catholic Faith, Dei Filius. Tradition, declared Vatican II,
...derived from
the apostles, develops in the Church
with the help
of the Holy Spirit... The words of the
holy fathers
witness to the presence of this living
tradition...
Through the same tradition the Church's
full canon of
the sacred books is known.... (20)
Especially significant is the statement made on the
relationship
between Tradition and Scripture. It employed the
phraseology of
Trent, apparently on papal insistence (presumably in view
of the
need to hold together the traditionalist and the
progressive wings
of the Church):
Hence there
exists a close connection and
communication
between Sacred Tradition and Sacred
Scripture. For
both of them, flowing from the same
divine
wellspring, in a certain way merge into unity
and tend toward
the same end. For Sacred Scripture is
the Word of
God, while Sacred Tradition takes the
Word of God
entrusted by Christ the Lord and the
Holy Spirit to
the Apostles, and hands it on to their
successors in
its full purity. Consequently it is not
from Sacred
Scripture alone that the Church draws
her certainty
about everything which has been
revealed.
Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred
Scripture are
to be accepted and venerated with the
same sense of
loyalty and reverence. Sacred
Tradition and
Sacred Scripture form one sacred
deposit of the
Word of God, committed to the
Church....
It is clear,
therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred
Scripture and
the teaching authority of the Church, in
accord with
God's most wise design, are so linked and
joined together
that one cannot stand without the
others, and
that all together and each in its own way,
under the
action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute
effectively to
the salvation of men.(21)
We ought not to make the mistake of assuming that the Roman
Catholic Church is thoroughly monolithic. As we have noted,
it too
has a conservative and liberal wing. Problems and
disagreements
arise in tracing and exegeting the Tradition as much as in
exegeting the Scriptures! Thus, for example, it has become
characteristic of many Roman Catholic scholars to reread
the
Tradition in as ecumenical a fashion as possible.
One of the most interesting developments within this
context has
been the emergence of a school of thought especially
stimulated
by the work of the Tubingen theologian J. R. Geiselmann.
This
school argues that the view that Scripture and Tradition
are twin
sources of revelation, complementing one another, is a
misreading
of the teaching of the Council of Trent. Geiselmann
appealed to
what he held to be the significant change introduced into
the final
text of the decree through the influence of Bishop Pietro
Bertano
of Fano and Angelo Bonucci, the General of the Servites.
The
draft for the Decree on Scripture and Tradition had stated
that
revealed truth was to be found partly in the books of
Scripture,
partly in the Traditions ("partim in libris... partim
in...
traditionibus"). But the final document spoke of this
truth being
in the scriptural books and in the unwritten traditions
("in libris
scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus"). Geiselmann
argued from
this change that Trent did not deny that all saving truth
is
contained in the Scriptures. The truth of divine revelation
is found
not partly in Scripture while the remainder is found in the
traditions (the draft formulation); it is all in Scripture.
It is also all
to be found in the tradition. It could be argued therefore
that the
sola Scriptura principle, properly understood, is
consistent with
Trent.(22)
In response to Geiselmann's position, however, Cardinal
Ratzinger (now Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith) has argued that
as a Catholic theologian, [Geiselmann] has to hold fast to
Catholic
dogmas as such, but none of them is to be had sola
scriptura,
neither the great dogmas of Christian antiquity, of what
was once
the consensus quinquesaecularis, nor, even less, the new
ones of
1854 and 1950. In that case, however, what sense is there
in
talking about the sufficiency of scripture?(23)
In a word, the deposit of the faith (depositum fideli) is
contained in
both Scripture and Tradition, and the task of interpreting
it is
"entrusted to bishops in communion with the successor
of Peter,
the Bishop of Rome."(24)
The recent document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
The
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, continues to
affirm this
position, if in a less polemical and dogmatic manner and in
an
ecumenically conscious fashion: "What characterizes
Catholic
exegesis is that it deliberately places itself within the
living
tradition of the Church."(25) In this context,
however, the
Commission is careful to add:
All
pre-understanding, however, brings dangers with
it. As regards
Catholic exegesis, the risk is that of
attributing to
biblical texts a meaning which they do
not contain but
which is the product of a later
development
within the tradition. The exegete must
beware of such
a danger.(26)
No hint of criticism is made of the fact that Sacred
Tradition
requires belief in dogma which is not contained in Sacred
Scripture. But there is present here a hint that exegetes
in the
past (and still today) may read the New Testament as though
it
had been written in the light of the Tradition, and thus
distort the
teaching of Sacred Scripture (and by implication perhaps
also the
function of the Tradition). Implicit in this is the
recognition of the
substance-gap between Sacred Scripture and Sacred
Tradition.
The historic Protestant view is that this gap becomes a
chasm at
certain strategic points. There is an unbearable
discrepancy, not
merely a healthy tension, between Sacred Scripture and
Sacred
Tradition in many areas.
In the earlier Roman Catholic handling of Scripture, any
gap
between the exegesis of Scripture and the content of the
Tradition
was minimized. The faithful Catholic exegete should not
even in
private exegete Scripture in a manner contrary to the
Tradition:
Furthermore, in
order to restrain petulant spirits, it
[the Council]
decrees, that no one, relying on his own
skill, shall --
in matters of faith, and of morals,
pertaining to
the edification of Christian doctrine --
wresting the
sacred Scripture to his own senses,
presume to
interpret the said Scripture contrary to
that sense
which holy mother Church -- whose it is to
judge the true
sense and interpretation of the holy
Scriptures --
hath held and doth hold; or even contrary
to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though
such
interpretations were never [intended] to be at
any time
published. Contraveners shall be made
known by their
Ordinaries, and be punished with the
penalties by
law established.(27)
A wide variety of factors contributed to the Reformation of
the
sixteenth century. Among the chief was the discovery,
fueled by
the Renaissance spirit of ad fontes, that the gap between
the clear
teaching of Scripture and the teaching of the Tradition was
at
points so great as to involve not merely development but
contradiction.
Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have
been
given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They
discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the
Roman
Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that
such
open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the
downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic
refrain
is that the difference between the content of Scripture and
the
content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but
only
development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is
that
the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As
Cardinal
Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to
Geiselmann,
there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found
in
the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be
regarded
as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in
the
Tradition which are not only additional to, but different
from and
contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These
include
the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the
Reformation
struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of
the
principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the
sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism,
the
presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all
believers,
the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of
Mary,
and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its
own
terms the more it will become clear that in these areas
Sacred
Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it
contradicts
it. And if it does, can it any longer be
"sacred"?
A major development has taken place, then, in Roman
Catholic
interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful.
We
should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the
Bible.
Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often
than we
do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's
understanding
of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great
Augustine
himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly
ours." Having
said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace
Geiselmann)
that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not
subscribe to
sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the
Bible. And,
as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two
sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents
of
Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is
inevitable
that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of
the
Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.
--Endnotes--
1 See, for example, Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According
to
John, Vol. 2 (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press, 1966) pp. 714-717.
2 Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine
(New York: Paulist Press, 1985) p.9.
3 Cited on the dustjacket of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans
(New
York, 1994).
4 Council of Trent's Decree on Justification, Canon XI..
See Rev.
H. J. Schroeder, O. P. Canons and Decrees of the Council of
Trent (Rockford, Ill.: Tan, 1978).
5 Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 138.
6 Ibid., p. 342.
7 Ibid., p. 343.
8 Ibid., p. 348.
9 Ibid., p. 348.
10 Council of Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin,
Session V
in Schroeder.
11 Council of Trent's Decree on Justification, Session VII
in
Schroeder.
12 Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 347
13 J.A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology, p. 78
14 The translation is Fitzmyer's.
15 See, e.g. Douglas Moo, Romans, Vol. 1 (Chicago.: Moody,
1991) pp. 358-9; J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol.
1
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959) pp. 205 -- 6, 336 -- 362.
16 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liquori, Mo.: Liquori,
1994)
p. 26, #83.
17 Decrees on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be
Received,
1S46.
18 J. Neuner and J. Dupois, eds., The Christian Faith in
the
Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, rev. ed.
(Staten
Island,: Alba, 1982) p. 79.
19 The interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Boston,
1993) p.
121. 20 Dogmatic Consitution on Divine Revelation, II:8.
(For an
English translation of the pronouncements of Vatican II,
see
Walter M. Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican lI, New
York:
Crossroad, 1966).
21 Ibid., II. [10].
22 The view Geiselmann rejects has been the view of the
major
Roman apologists since Trent. For a brief account see J. R.
Geiselmann, "Scripture, Tradition, and the Church: An
Ecumenical Problem" in D. J. Callahan, H. A. Obermann,
and D.
J. O'Hanlon, eds., Christianity Divided (London, 1962) pp.
39 --
72.
23 J. Ratzinger in K. Rahner and J. Ratzinger, Revelation
and
Tradition, translated from the German, Offenbarung und
Uberlieferung, by W. J. O'Hara (New York, 1966) p. 33. The
references to 1854 and 1950 are to the Bull lneffabilis
Deus
promulgating the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
(i.e., the
perpetual sinlessness of the virgin Mary) and to the
Apostolic
Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which promulgated the
Bodily Assumption into heaven of the virgin Mary.
24 Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 27, #85.
25 The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, p. 89.
26 Ibid.
27 "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the
Sacred
Books," in Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom,
Vol.2
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) p. 83.
This article is from Chapter 6 of Sola Scriptura! The
Protestant
Position on the Bible, an excellent book defending the
doctrine of
Sola Scriptura! and is highly recommended by this site.
Contact
Soli Deo Gloria Publications to order this book.
Special thanks to Dr. Sinclair Ferguson for permmission to
use
this article, and to Cindy Matthews for her help in making
this
article available. Soli Deo Gloria!