Skip to main content

Man-Made Tradition

It can be argued that what belongs to what Catholics call "Sacred Tradition" are traditions of men. In fact, people argue this all the time. The polemics are not new. However, an important step in the process of accepting divine revelation is the ability to distinguish in a principled way between divine revelation, and human opinion.

When a Catholic apologist says, "Sola Scriptura collapses into Solo Scriptura," what he's saying is, "There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation, and human opinion." Revelation is received. It is intrinsic to the purpose of the human person to receive revelation as the beginning of communion with God, his or her ultimate end. If he cannot distinguish between revelation and human opinion in his own hermeneutical process, by what means will he judge that the Catholic Church has adopted traditions of men, against God's word?

It's no doubt appealing to say, "We're all sinners," when faced with what I call the Noltie Conundrum; it's interesting to note that the reality of the Fall is not acknowledged at every step of the process. When a Sola Scriptura adherent needs an unimpeachable dogma against something he believes to be false, he curiously forgets the "chaos" he has acknowledged.

For my part, infallibility is the distinguishing mark of divine revelation, in contrast to human opinion. So, if none of the ecclesial bodies possesses a charism of infallibility in any circumstances--the unstated premise of Sola Scriptura--then the individual must possess it. Even if that conclusion could be supposed, the person cannot know whether he is exercising that charism, because he can't distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion.

My friend Davis Evans of Melbourne, Florida, this rabbit-hole goes pretty deep.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un