Skip to main content

Just Get It Over With

Read this. He may have a doctorate, but he's very confused. "Tradition" isn't just a card you play; it's a recognition that God has broken into the normal course of human events to say something, something that transcends us by the fact of Him saying it. This is one of the chief characteristics of revelation; it is given by God, and in the case of supernatural or special revelation, could not be otherwise known. If I may digress for a moment, one reason why some Catholics reject the false "Scripture vs. Tradition" dilemma is that Sacred Scripture, though uniquely God-breathed, is Tradition.

That may shock you, but stay with me. Were not the Scriptures of the New Covenant composed as the written version of the apostolic kerygma concerning Jesus? Being careful to remember that the Sacred Scriptures are of divine origin, and in consequence, completely free from error, we must say this. The Scriptures are human in that sense, that real people encountered God in the normal course of events. This is why Newman begins with the Incarnation when he makes the case for doctrinal development; it is the ultimate expression of God's love for us, and a vindication of our humanity; he was humbled and certainly humiliated, but no longer would "human" be automatically synonymous with weakness and failure. He took on our nature and elevated it. I digress. Alleluia!

And I say "Scriptures of the New Covenant" with intention. God in Christ was reconciling the world to Himself before any of the Apostles or their company put pen to paper. The Church of the New Covenant received and was sustained by His Eucharistic presence before anybody read anything about it. God and His People, the basic outline of history in redemption. I'm indebted to Dr. Scott Hahn for that point.

It would be deeply unhistorical to appeal to certain formulations in history, while spurning all innovation or development. That's just it, though: Leithart can't really tell us the difference between a development and a corruption, because he rejects the Church, the new People of God, in whose life and doctrine the distinction can be made in a principled way. So he must on the one hand accept everything since the Protestant revolt (its animating principle being the primacy of conscience and individual interpretation) as a development, while appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church against what he regards are the nastier fruits of that individualist position. The appeal to history isn't wrong; it's just often ad hoc.

Sooner or later, one has to face the axiom: One cannot be both the arbiter of divine revelation, and a humble receiver of it at the same time. To say that ever-new understandings of what God has said in Christ may break forth is to accept the principle of development. To be a Catholic truly is to accept the Church which is Tradition's guardian, by the will of God. Why would any Christian, no matter how brilliant, be allowed to define "Church" or "faith" for himself?

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