Tradition?

[The Reformers’] conflict with the papacy was not a choice between Scripture and tradition, but a conflict between their view of tradition and the papacy’s view of tradition.

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, by Matthew Barrett

How are these two views of tradition, as described by Barrett, to be understood?  Barrett points to Heiko Oberman as one who has delineated these two views. 

On the one hand, identified as Tradition 1 (T1), tradition is seen as “the instrumental vehicle of Scripture which brings the contents of Holy Scripture to life in a constant dialogue between the doctors of Scripture and the Church.”  The Church Fathers working tirelessly to give us an orthodox interpretation and understanding.

Tradition 2 (T2) sees Tradition “as the authoritative vehicle of divine truth, embedded in Scripture but overflowing in extrascriptural apostolic tradition handed down through episcopal succession.”  As Barrett will come to explore, this understanding was not so cut-and-dry, and it is one that grew and developed over time.  This doesn’t make it in error on its face, at least not in my view. 

Just to put my cards on the table, I very much lean into T1.  We have to have some unquestioned and infallible anchor, some foundation – and it cannot be man, because no matter the claims of apostolic succession or “we have the tradition that was handed down from the apostles,” we know from history that this isn’t so, and we know that due to the fallibility of humans this cannot be so. 

At the same time, I find many in the sola scriptura camp that almost bypass the understanding of the early Church Fathers – other than Augustine, and even him through osmosis.  No throwing stones here, I live in a house made mostly of glass.

With this said, and as I have mentioned often, while I regularly attend a protestant church led by a pastor that gives rather long and very Scripturally-based sermons, I do also attend (not as often, but often enough) an Orthodox Church, as I value the…tradition of and the worship in the liturgy.

T1 strikes me as prima scriptura, which for me is a more understandable (and, personally, acceptable) framing than how many understand (or characterize) sola scriptura.  Scripture is the supreme authority, and the only infallible authority.  But there is a place for tradition; I think this is inescapable if we are to keep our faith.

The foundation for T2 perhaps can best be found in John 16:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

It seems to me, arguably at least, that these things were then taught to the apostles by “the Spirit of Truth,” and the apostles shared these things with us through their subsequent letters and writings that make up the remainder of the New Testament.  There are certainly arguments to the contrary, but this seems to me at least reasonable.

Returning to Barrett, there is evidence, disagreement, and argument about just when and how these two views of tradition became so clearly delineated.  There is a further issue in the T2 camp: just where did this authority lie?  In simple terms, did the authority lie with Church councils or with the pope?  Hopefully it is clear that this is a very messy topic, with no simple string of “the tradition handed down from the apostles” which we can pull.

Addressing some of the messiness … Early on, proponents of T2 would have claimed that they were leaning on Scripture for their determinations; yet, at the same time, Basil the Great, in the fourth century, seemed to entertain a view of T2 stand-alone.

Even as late as the twelfth century, many canonists held to the view that Scripture contained all of the divine truth, and the living voice of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was to interpret and proclaim it anew for each generation.  At the same time, they viewed the creeds as defining various tenets of Christian doctrine with “absolute fidelity.”

Citing Tierney:

“Canonist teaching throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was entirely consistent with the doctrines commonly taught by the theologians of that age – that sacred Scripture contained implicitly or explicitly all the revealed truths of Christian faith and that papal power was wholly subordinate to Scriptural revelation where matters of faith were concerned.”

Even for those who claimed that the pope in Rome had supreme authority, they did not claim that he was infallible (Bonaventure is identified as one holding such a view).  Then there was the view that the “Roman Church” did not mean, nor was it synonymous with, the pope – that, in the face of the pope’s errors, there would always be a remnant within the Church that was the true Church.

Like I said, a messy topic with a messy history.  It only gets slightly clearer in the Late Middle Ages, beginning with the fourteenth century.  Yet, even as the lines between T1 and T2 were more clearly defined, and as T2 emerged in the higher position, just which authority should govern remained a point of disagreement among its advocates. 

A handful of touchpoints in this dialogue: The first to teach infallibility explicitly appears to be Pietro Olivi, a thirteenth century Franciscan.  At the root of this was the question: did true godliness require a vow of poverty?  Nicholas III released a bull in 1279 which answered clearly, yes, and that poverty should be practiced by both the individual and the community.

Music to a Franciscan’s ears.  Olivi was rather pleased with this conclusion, noting that God has given the ability to not err to the Roman pontiff.  Papal infallibility would secure, according to Olivi, this call to poverty permanently.  Any future deviation would only expose an invalid pope, thus inviting ecclesiastical discipline.

It might have come to a quick end.  After his death, Olivi’s views were renounced and his writing burned – after all, it could not be denied that earlier popes had erred.  A subsequent pope, John XXII, would revoke the rule of poverty, stating it could be found nowhere in Scripture. 

Henry of Ghent would entertain the question: Is there a divergence between Scripture and tradition?  It seemed an unfathomable question to pose; how could there be?  Henry did not approve of tradition as an additional source of divine revelation.  He believed that the Christian should follow both the Fathers and the Scriptures, and that it was intended by God that the former should expound and elaborate on the latter.

Yet this expounding and elaborating could include sources not found in Scripture.  As noted earlier, in John chapter 16, Jesus offers that some things would be revealed later.  While Henry did not propose further revelation, he did offer that the Fathers were charged with filling in the gaps, if you will – in other words, these could be considered sources not found in Scripture. 

However, ultimately, if there was to be a conflict between Scripture and tradition, Henry placed Scripture in authority.  Yes, in prior centuries, many would consider Scripture in the highest authority, but there never was a meaningful question or concern that the two would diverge.  Through Henry and in this manner, a subtle, primitive, widening would form between the two. 

Where Henry would prize church doctors such as himself as judges of the papacy, Duns Scotus would hold the same place for church councils.  The Church does not err in faith and morals, because there are always some in the Church where faith and morals are held true.  Any issues can be resolved via councils.

While all this was ongoing, Pope Innocent III asserted himself as the vicar of Christ on earth.  This covered both the spiritual and political realm.  This didn’t sit well in France, where King Philip the Fair would challenge Pope Boniface VIII several decades later.  Boniface threatened excommunication, and Philip cut off funding from France to Rome.  Boniface would relent.

But he wouldn’t let go.  in 1302, Boniface would sanction a papal bull articulating papal supremacy far more explicitly that did Pope Innocent at the Fourth Lateran Council.  The Church was Noah’s Ark, and the pope held the key to entry.  Anyone not committed to Peter and his successors were not of Christ’s sheep.

The state would still wield the sword, but only at the bidding of the Church.  The Church would condemn heresy, and the state would mete out the punishment.  Boniface viewed this authority as God-given; to resist the pope, therefore, was to resist God. 

Philip didn’t buy it, and offered that Boniface should be held accountable to a church council of both East and West (and we know how that would be decided).  Boniface excommunicate Philip, Philip captured Boniface, and Boniface died shortly thereafter.

Conclusion

The Avignon captivity.  The new pope, Clement V, was French.  He would move the papacy from Rome to Avignon.  The question of papal authority and infallibility would rage once more.  In fact, it was considered by some that secular authorities were placed by God to oversee the church, and even decide matters from councils to clergy.

Epilogue

Guido Terreni, an early fourteenth century advocate of papal infallibility, would claim that Aquinas also held such a view.  Historians have demonstrated that this wasn’t the case.  Yet, at the First Vatican Council in 1870, papal infallibility was decreed to be official church dogma.

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith… we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra…is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals….

Whether or not tradition is being adhered to, it is clear that if it is tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, that tradition did not walk in a straight and unbroken line.