(Mr.) Palm Reading
David Palm’s excellent article on Oral Tradition in the New Testament [This Rock, May 1995] documents what is undeniable on investigation, that the New Testament writers appropriated Jewish oral traditions and even based doctrinal statements on them. This undermines the claim of traditional Protestants that we should reject oral tradition as a basis of our theology because the New Testament writers did so. Palm also correctly points out that the early Church did not rely on Scripture alone to counter heresy but relied instead on the “rule of faith” that consisted of certain interpretations of Scripture and apostolic oral tradition.
Unfortunately, Mr. Palm’s claim answers only one form of the sola scriptura argument, albeit the one most commonly found among Evangelicals. But once Evangelicals rediscover Luther and Calvin, they will find that these two Reformers did not in fact ignore oral tradition. They believed that what they taught was not only in Scripture but was what the ancient Fathers of the Church taught.
Calvin, for example, argued in an exchange with Jacob Cardinal Sadleto that it was the Roman Church that departed from the ancient faith and that the Reformers were simply trying to restore this faith to the Church. Calvin’s position would better be characterized as prima scriptura (Scripture first) rather than sola scriptura. Even Philip Melanchthon, who, if I am not mistaken, coined the phrase sola scriptura, often cited the Church Fathers in support of Lutheran doctrine. So, Evangelicals might profitably buttress their theological method by returning to the methods of the original Reformers from whom most of them have departed.
Evangelicals who try to deepen their theologies by citing the Fathers of the Church, as Luther and Calvin did, will still find themselves wanting. Evangelicalism and Catholicism have different culturally-ingrained ways of reading the Fathers.
The former reads them as individuals only and cites them in support only when they agree with a prior Evangelical reading of a biblical text. This is due to the belief that the Fathers derived their faith directly from Scripture and that we should follow their example. Hence sola scriptura.
Catholicism reads the individual Father as a witness to the deposit of faith that exited in the ancient Christian communities. When the patristic witnesses achieve practical unanimity in the reading of a text, it is binding on the Church (according to the criterion of the Council of Trent). Thus for Catholics, while a particular Father might have theological errors, the entire patristic tradition cannot. A uniform interpretation of a text among the Fathers is a part of the rule of faith. For Luther, Calvin, and their Evangelical progeny, the entire patristic tradition may be wrong if it contradicts their own reading of the Bible.
What convinced me the Evangelical reading of the Fathers was wrong was what the Fathers themselves said. Augustine, for example, in the Confessions, says that Scripture and Tradition shaped his understanding of God. Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage in 250, says that the unity of the Catholic Church is based on the unbroken tradition preserved in the Church. Augustine, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis, says we should attempt to understand the biblical author’s meaning. Failing that, we should interpret the text by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Then, if we fail to achieve unanimity, we should at least interpret the text in accord with the rule of faith that had existed in the Church since its inception.
The Catholic notion of a deposit of faith existed among the ancient Christians writers and functioned to give unity to the Church. Evangelicals’ selective reading of the Fathers suffers from the same myopia that affects their reading of the Bible and their view of the Church. They first arrive at a meaning independent of tradition and then judge tradition by that meaning. This fosters individual authority and disunity. We should listen to the Fathers and read the Bible, knowing that the risen Lord did not give this precious Book to me as an individual but to us as his Body. Patres Vivant!
Kenneth J. Howell
Bloomington, Indiana
On the Other Hand…
Mr. Palm proves beyond debate that in several places New Testament writers draw on something other than the Old Testament when referring back to those times. They write about things that happened to certain Old Testament characters which are not recorded in the Old Testament. But it may be jumping to conclusions to say that the New Testament writers were in every case getting their information from oral tradition.
Of the examples Mr. Palm cites, only Matthew 2:23 says anything to the effect “this is something that was said.” The other passages just have the incident recorded. Since the writers do not say “as tradition has it,” or some such thing, we ought not to assume that they got their information from tradition, especially when the alternative of direct revelation would equally explain why we cannot find these things in the Old Testament.
Mr. Palm cites several passages which he believes “place apostolic Traditions, passed on orally, on par with written Scripture.” He may be reading into them more than is there. In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul praises the believers for holding to the traditions he had delivered to them. Context demands that these traditions, whatever they are, have to do with conduct. It must be proved that he is referring here to doctrinal truths which are in addition to what has been or will be written and are to be passed down orally and not recorded on paper.
In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul gives thanks to God because the Thessalonians received as God’s word what they heard from Paul and his companions. Mr. Palm sees in the phrase “which you all heard from us” a reference to oral tradition. To say that, at that time, when the Thessalonians first heard the gospel, it was oral, not written, won’t do, because no one questions that during those early years the gospel was spoken before it was written. What is debated is whether or not there has existed for the past nineteen plus centuries a body of oral traditions separate from the written word. This verse lends no support to such a position.
Second Thessalonians 2: 15 seems to lend more weight to Mr. Palm’s position. Paul writes, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you all were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Clearly there are two sources here for what Paul expected the Thessalonians to know-“word” (what he had taught them orally) and “our epistle” (his first letter to them).
But it is a great assumption to conclude from this that such is the case for believers today. It must be remembered that this isn’t only the second epistle Paul wrote. Is it not possible that what he taught the Thessalonians orally he later wrote down in the other eleven letters to which he put his name? True, Paul nowhere specifically writes that he has done this, but neither does he write that what he taught orally is to remain unwritten.
Mr. Palm says that when he went to his Protestant teachers from seminary they were unable to show him where the Bible teaches that it alone is to be the authority in matters of faith and morals. It seems that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 teaches just that very thing. Here Paul writes, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
If Scripture (used by the Holy Spirit, of course) can make a believer complete (spiritually mature) and provide to him everything he needs to know to do any good work God asks of him, does this not say that the Bible is enough? Does this not make Tradition unnecessary and superfluous at best?
Since Tradition teaches some things which are not in the Bible (Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption into heaven, for example), does not the use of it alongside the Bible hinder the Spirit’s efforts to make the believer more Christ-like? Since the Bible has all that we need, what need have we of Tradition?
It may be argued that Paul here is referring to the Old Testament alone, since that is all that Timothy had as a child, and that since we know that the Old Testament by itself cannot provide all of the information a Christian needs to reach spiritual maturity, Paul must have meant something else. But when the Old Testament was all that was available it did contain everything the saints of that time needed to do what God expected of them.
Because God has since revealed more, both the Old Testament and the New Testament are necessary today. The Lord never expects his people to know or be responsible for more then he has revealed. Note also that the passage here says that all Scripture does these good things and makes for completeness.
Yet another point is that, if we allow that oral tradition is meant to be an authority alongside the Bible, how do we know that the traditions held by the Catholic Church are the ones God wanted to be passed down orally? For the Church to claim that they are won’t do. Since any group can claim anything, a reliable witness other than the Church is needed here. The only possible witness is the Bible.
But since there are things in Tradition which are not in Scripture, such as the doctrines about Mary, there is no proof (outside the Church’s claim) that the apostles taught the contents of Tradition. If one takes the Catholic Church’s word for it and believes Tradition necessary for Christian maturity, then he must explain 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
Greg Barnes
Springfield, Missouri
Editor’s reply: For reasons of space we have had to omit portions of your very long letter, but what is printed here preserves your chief arguments. In This Rock we have explained 2 Timothy 3: 15-17 several times in the last few years, and I analyzed those verses in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, where I mentioned Cardinal Newman’s critique of the Evangelical argument. Your points have been addressed also in our tapes, such as the “Bible Only Debate” and “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?”
Unfossilized
I have been receiving your magazine for three months, and always find something helpful in it. However, I have noticed letters in the past two issues, one criticizing cradle Catholics (easy targets) in your April issue, and the other conservative Catholics who find little or nothing to recommend the changes which followed Vatican II in time, not in spirit. I am a cradle Catholic who was 14 when “folk Masses” washed over our diocese like a flash flood.
Our wonderful high school principal, a truly holy man, a canon lawyer with a licentiate from Lateran University and a monstrous IQ was “promoted” to a parish of two thousand souls without an assistant after he proved to be “uncooperative” and “not in the spirit of Vatican II.” Father died a little more than a year after his promotion, his health never having been very good.
He was replaced with golf-playing functionaries and snickering smart alecks who told us that we could in good conscience reject any item of the Faith we could not accept.
Then, quite literally, all hell broke loose. By my senior retreat, when I asked a priest what possible purpose there could be in existence, he pointed me to the existentialist philosophers and never mentioned Jesus Christ. By the end of my freshmen year of college my Catholicism was lost, and by the end of my senior year I was an atheist that no one dared trifle with.
My return to the Church is truly a miracle of grace which I can attribute in great measure to EWTN and Mother Angelica. I began to find out that the Church was still teaching the same truth it always had, and I began to read extensively, starting with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Apologetics was something to be despised when my religious curriculum should have been covering it.
I have no brief against the Mass in the vernacular, but I find the scriptural and liturgical translations banal and many celebrants bent on a carnival atmosphere and frequent “experiments.” I pray for them and offer up my sufferings.
You converts and babes, instead of criticizing us ignorant fossils, ask us why we feel the way we do, or why we don’t know any better. You might have more compassion for us. If you can’t talk to us, you might try prayer.
Name Withheld
Arkadelphia, Arkansas
A Man with Good Taste
I have read your new Internet home page [location: http://www.catholic.com/-answers] as well as the gopher site contents and am subscribing to This Rock as soon as I mail the check. I can’t tell you how impressed I am with your apostolate and with the quality of articles I browsed on the net.
Spence Cason
via the Internet
A Sob Story
I just returned to your World Wide Web site after having been away for a few days. What a miracle — I’m practically in tears. So much good work here; I think you’ve reached critical mass and have started a chain reaction for explosive Christianity.
Keep mining the notion of a virtual parish. Someone is bound to be able to harness a local announcement module without allowing corrupting local access to make editorial control problematic.
Bernie Chachula
via the Internet
1, 2, 3
It was Karl Keating’s appearance on “Mother Angelica Live” that got me to pick up the phone and order a copy of Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth. It was Pillar that got me to pick up the phone and schedule an appointment with a priest. And it was God’s love through many friends that got me to join this big, happy family two years ago.
Tim Dix
via theInternet
For Want of a Nail…
A Chinese woman at work expressed difficulty she was having with Buddhism. I gave her a pamphlet written by a Catholic but mostly about Christianity in general. She became a Baptist. If! had had Catholic material for her, she might have looked into Catholicism.
Glenn Grabbe
via the Internet