A reader writes:
I am almost finished reading your book By What Authority, and wanted to express my extreme gratitude to you for writing this book. I was raised as an evangelical and, like you and so many others, have been mulling over questions that seem to have no satisfactory answers inside the evangelical world. I recently picked up the aforementioned book and have not been able to put it down. I have been on an exploratory mission the last couple of years, researching and praying about the Catholic Church, and if there were a lynch pin in my story, reading this book might just be it. I have a question though that was not addressed in the book, or maybe I just didn’t pick up on it.
My question is this ... If the Church relies on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as you explain, both written and unwritten, what exactly does that Sacred Tradition look like? What is it right now, two thousand years later?
I assume that it is all written down, perhaps comprised of the writings of the early Church Fathers ... Right? Or does it reside in the living successors to the apostles? And if it is written down, what is the difference between that and the Scriptures if both are equal and necessary?
Or is some written in history, such as veneration of Mary and the saints, and some of it unwritten as of yet, such as prohibition of doctor assisted suicide?
Gawrsh! Thanks for your kind words!
In answer to your question: Sacred Tradition is the common life, worship and teaching of the Catholic faith. You can read about the basics of what it is and how it relates to Scripture (which is the written aspect of the Tradition) by starting here and going down to paragraph 100 of the Catechism.
Beyond this, though, asking “exactly” what Tradition looks like and where it can be found is rather like asking “exactly” what Western Civilization is and where it can be found. Is it in Beethoven? Or the Beatles? Dante or Mark Twain? The architecture of St. Peter’s or the Empire State Building? The monarchy of Louis IX or the presidency of Thomas Jefferson? The Simpsons or the Mona Lisa? Well, all of these things are expressions of Western Civilization. And the thought of Fathers of the Church who sometimes quarreled or disagreed with each other on certain points still falls within the Catholic tradition, too.
Or, to vary the metaphor, it’s like asking just where the exact location of Jazz is and what the precise boundaries and borders there are between it and, say, Rock and Pop. That sort of mathematical precision won’t get you anywhere. In short, I suspect you need to rethink your paradigm.
Strictly speaking, the Tradition is Jesus. It is he who is being handed down by the Church in her life, worship, and teaching. The Church hands him down in the sacraments, for instance. She hands him down in her doctrines, which teach us to think with the mind of Christ. She hands him down in her moral and devotional life, wherein we learn to worship the Father as he does. She hands him down in her people, both lay and ordained as they gather to worship and express him through our various gifts and offices. She hands him down in Scripture, which is his living word in writing. She hands him down in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. She hands him down in the ordained office. In all this, the Tradition is much more like a living organism than a mathematically precise body of doctrines.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to know the doctrines of the faith. That’s what the Catechism is for: to teach us that doctrinal content. Similarly, if you want, you can get down to the bare bones of Catholic dogma by looking at such works as Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. But I would urge a more “maximalist” approach. That is, instead of training yourself to think in terms of “What’s the skeleton of the body of Christ look like?” instead look for what the body of the body of Christ looks like in all its tremendous and rich diversity. What is remarkable about the faith is not merely the remarkable integrity of its dogmatic bones, but the fantastic diversity of life and the richness of its members in gifts, culture, devotions, prayers, practices and custom. The great thing about it is the sheer freedom of the Tradition that the dogma protects. The essentials of the faith (articulated in things like the dogmas and creeds of the faith and expressed in her liturgical life) exist in order to make human beings as free as we can be. This is why, not to put too fine a point on it, the Catholic tradition has always reveled in oddballs and eccentrics (just read the lives of the saints!).
In answer to your specific questions:
1. If you are looking for the authentic summary of the Church’s tradition, look for it in the ordinary places: namely, the Mass (since “the way we worship is the way we believe”), the Catechism (because it is the “new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” according to Pope John Paul II). Finally, though it may feel weird for an Evangelical, I would also pay attention to ancient practices like the Rosary since it too is essentially a pious summary of the essentials of the Gospel, given in the form of a meditation on important moments in the life of Jesus Christ as seen through the eyes of his greatest disciple, Mary.
2. No. The tradition is by no means all written down and indeed some of it cannot be written since it consists, not so much of words, as of a particular way of seeing the world: what has been called the sacramental/liturgical way. This way of seeing is not so much learned as caught. It is not a matter of secret knowledge (the Church, in fact, despises the notion that the Gospel is some Gnostic secret knowable only to the initiate and insists that the Gospel is, in fact, completely public information). But it is a way of seeing the world that is not communicated simply via the written word. It is also communicated via gesture (especially the gestures of the liturgy) and via the assumption that the world is a giant sacramental by which God communicates his grace not merely through word, but through creation and especially those creations we call “sacraments.”
3. The Fathers of the Church are invaluable guides (particularly when they broadly agree) about what the core teachings of the faith are. They are to Scripture something like what the Federalist Papers are to the Constitution because they give us insights into how those who shared the language, culture, table and trials of the apostles thought about what the apostles taught them. Consensus among them about a particular idea is an *awfully* strong indication that this is what the apostles taught them to think, rather than the preposterous notion that they all went mad in exactly the same way and, say, all accidentally concluded that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ when the apostle actually taught it was just a symbolic reminder. The reasonable conclusion is that they all took it to be the body and blood of Christ because that what the apostles told them it was.
4. The bishops are the ordained conservators *and* developers of the Tradition. “He who listens to you listens to me. And he who listens to me, listens to him who sent me.” No bishop, speaking as a private individual is infallible, of course. Not even the Pope. But as a general rule, we are called to obey the bishop (on those extremely rare occasions where he asks our obedience) since it is his task to teach, sanctify and govern. In council, it’s another story: and the Councils of the Church occur now and then to guide the Church through the turbulent waters of history. Of course, the paradox is that every council generates its own turbulence and tends to create a small backwash of people who “liked it better before they changed everything.” This phenomenon is as old as Acts 15, which produced the first Reactionaries, known as “Judaizers,” who didn’t like all that newfangled stuff about Gentile converts not needing circumcision. Of course, it also produces Progressives, who are full of the future and sure they know where history is going. These people, who John warned not to “run ahead,” tend to be full of devotion to the Council that they are sure will happen in the near future, which will affirm them in all their dissents from Church teaching that bugs them at present (typically, in our day, meaning The Pelvic Issues). The pattern of Reactionary and Progressive Dissent continues on down to the present and the remedy is the same: Stick with what the Church teaches and you’ll be fine.
4. See the Catechism link on the relationship of the written Tradition (i.e Scripture) and the unwritten Tradition.
5. The veneration of Mary and the saints is a fixture of the liturgy from the get-go, which is how we know it is part of the Tradition.
6. As to things like euthanasia, this is why the task of the Magisterium, or teaching office of the Church, is to *develop* and not merely conserve the Tradition. In this case, we are looking at a development of the fifth commandment: You shall not murder. The task is to apply old truth to new situations. In this case, euthanasia has been condemned multiple times in such documents as Evangelium Vitae (an encyclical by JPII) and other documents. In one sense, it’s nothing new, since the Church has always condemned the taking of innocent human life. But it is new because now we face a culture that predicates the value of human life on things like pleasure and productivity instead of on inherent dignity. So things our ancestors took for granted must now be laboriously explained to an increasingly anti-natural culture.
Comments
Post a Comment
Wow, that is as good an answer on this topic as I have ever heard from anyone, be it lay or cleric.
Mr. Shea you have a way with words.
Mark, I also found your explanation of Tradition helpful in your book and on your blog. Here’s a little more from Pope Benedict:
“In this catechesis we wish to understand a little more what the Church is. Last time we reflected on the topic of apostolic Tradition. We have seen that it is not a collection of things or words, like a box of dead things. Tradition is the river of new life that proceeds from the origins, from Christ to us, and makes us participate in God’s history with humanity.”
In the previous week’s audience, he said:
“The Church’s apostolic Tradition consists in this transmission of the goods of salvation, which makes of the Christian community the permanent actualization, with the force of the Spirit, of the original communion. It is called thus because it was born from the testimony of the apostles and of the community of the disciples in the early years, was given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the writings of the New Testament, and in the sacramental life, in the life of faith, and the Church makes constant reference to it — to this Tradition that is the always present reality of the gift of Jesus — as its foundation and norm through the uninterrupted succession of the apostolic ministry.”
Excellent summary, Mark. I like the idea that Sacred Tradition is more like a living, growing organism than a precise set of doctrines.
Dogmatic Constitution on General Directory for Catechesis
For those who don’t understand Mark and would like to know more about Apostolic Tradition.
Mark: Thanks for one of the fullest, easiest to read and clearly written explanations of the idea of tradition as taught and held by Catholics.
To David T. You wrote: “I like the idea that Sacred Tradition is more like a living, growing organism than a precise set of doctrines.”
Cradle’s reply-
I’m happy it works for you. But what did St. Paul & St. Peter write about this? It’s right there for us to read, in 1st & 2nd Peter, and in many of St. Paul’s 13 New Testament letters.
To Cradle: Not sure what you’re trying to say.
IGNORE CRADLE
HE IS A TROLL
Born Again Cradle Catholic:
Paul said to hold fast to the tradition he taught, both written and unwritten (2 Thess 2:15). He never said a word about sola scriptura though. Hope you think about it and return to the Church.
CCC 80 - “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
CCC 82 - As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
CCC 83 - The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit.”
-Papias, Sayings of the Lord (115-140 AD)
To Mark Shea -
I asked a question. It’s comical how folks read into it. And I never stopped going to Mass. I’ve gone to Mass since childhood, every Sunday.
The last Mass I was at was last Sunday; God-willing, I’ll be at Mass this Sunday. I was at Stations of the Cross last Friday - and plan to be there again this Friday. The Triduum is my most favorite liturgical time of year. So I don’t know what you mean by saying you hope I return to the Church. No need to delve deeper into it, on your part. I just wanted to point out to you that your post did confuse me.
Sorry I misunderstood you, Born Again. Typically handles like yours are adopted to announce that the owner used to be Catholic, but now has had a born again experience and adopted some form of biblical fundamentalism which (imagines) it rejects Sacred Tradition and embrace “the Bible alone”. That’s what I took you to be saying. My apologies.
Our Holy Father Benedict XVI has shed some light on this question in recent years, and his words are worth remembering here. He has described Tradition as a “living dynamic reality.” This phrase might seem contradictory to some notions of Tradition, and perhaps that is why Pope Benedict felt it necessary to devote so much time to clarifying the topic on various occasions. The notion that Tradition is a “living dynamic reality” is explicitly stated in the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini (The Word of the Lord) in the section entitled “Tradition and Scripture.” In that section, footnote number 57 refers to section number 8 of the document Dei Verbum (God’s Word) of the Second Vatican Council. This section is key to understanding the Pope’s explanation of Apostolic Tradition. The Catechism itself, referring to the Council texts, states that: “The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition” (No. 83). It is in the light of this statement that we can understand another statement of the same Catechism: “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God that has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit” (No. 81). The Catechism further clarifies of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in this way: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture then are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other, for both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.” The Catechism then goes on to add this explanatory phrase about Scripture and Tradition: “Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own ‘always, to the close of the age’” (No. 80). It is therefore this presence of Christ through his Spirit which lies at the heart of the Catholic insistence on the importance of Tradition as well as Scripture in our response of faith to the Word of God. Although the Sacred Scripture is described as the “speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit,” the Catechism clearly insists that “Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles,” and it goes on to add that “It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching” (No. 81). Here, for the sake of clarity and to avoid misunderstanding, it is useful to note these words of the Pope at his general audience of May 3, 2006. Speaking of Tradition, he says “it is not a collection of things or words, like a box of dead things. Tradition is the river of new life that flows from the origins, from Christ down to us, and makes us participate in God’s history with humanity.” To be especially noted is the phrase that it is not “like a box of dead things.” It is precisely because of this that Tradition has that dynamic quality which was referred to earlier. It is a quality that can seem for some at first glance to be a contradiction in terms. In fact, in his audience of May 3, the Pope was reiterating what he had explained already in the previous week (April 26, 2006). What he says there gives a correct understanding of what tradition truly is. The Holy Father begins with the idea of ecclesial communion and points out that this is “inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit” and “preserved and promoted by the apostolic ministry.” This communion is the Church, which is not limited to just one historical period. Rather it extends to all generations. The Pope thus speaks of a “diachronic universality” (universality throughout time) in which “all epochs belong to us, and all the believers of the past and of the future form with us a single great communion.” Thus, “Thanks to the Paraclete, it will always be possible for subsequent generations to have the same experience of the Risen One that was lived by the apostolic community at the origin of the Church, since it is passed on and actualized in the faith, worship and communion of the People of God on pilgrimage through time.” Note how key is the role of the Spirit of the risen Lord in rendering ever present in all ages the Lord who promised never to abandon his Church. It is this presence that creates the “single great communion” which transcends time and gives us today an ever new yet continuous participation in the revelation of Christ. In his audience of April 26, 2006, he very succinctly states: “the Church’s apostolic Tradition consists in this transmission of the goods of salvation which, through the power of the Spirit, makes the Christian community the permanent actualization of the original communion.” Thus, as we have seen, “Thanks to the Paraclete, it will always be possible for subsequent generations to have the same experience of the Risen One that was lived by the apostolic community at the origin of the Church since it is passed on and actualized in the faith, worship and communion of the People of God, on pilgrimage through time.” Thus the saving presence of the Lord is realized here and now by the Holy Spirit. He also states that, “The Acts of the Apostles – in continuity with the pattern of Luke’s Gospel – show vividly the interpenetration between the Spirit, those sent out by Christ and the community that have gathered.” The Pope then elaborates on his thought in this way, “This permanent actualization of the active presence of the Lord Jesus in his People, brought about by the Holy Spirit and expressed in the Church through the apostolic ministry and fraternal communion, is what, in a theological sense, is meant by the term Tradition: it is not merely the material transmission of what was given at the beginning to the Apostles, but the effective presence of the Crucified and Risen Lord Jesus who accompanies and guides in the Spirit the community he has gathered together.” In a word, “Tradition is the permanent presence of the Savior who comes to meet us, to redeem us and to sanctify us in the Spirit, through the ministry of his Church to the glory of the Father.” It is clear in this quote that the whole community, united under the Apostles’ successors continues to experience this guiding presence of the Spirit. We can therefore understand that what we mean by “Tradition” goes beyond the famous quote of St. Paul that has often been used in Catholic circles to express the Catholic position against Sola Scriptura. St Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “Hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter” (2 Th 2:15). This could easily give the notion of something static and fixed. Instead of this limited notion, the Pope sees the role of tradition in the words of Christ, “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). The Holy Father would no doubt also see tradition in the words of Christ to his apostles: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you …. Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:21-22). What the Pope is saying was stated by the Council, but it was not said with the same clarity, which is why the Pope’s clarifications are so striking. In fact, in his audience of May 3, 2006 he specifically refers to what the Council said in Dei Verbum, No. 8 (on Divine Revelation): “What was handed on by the Apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith. In this way, the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” Nevertheless, the richness of the Council teaching could easily escape the attention of most readers without the Pope’s clarifications. In particular and in a striking way, he stated at the end of that same general audience that, “The distance of the centuries is overcome and the Risen One offers himself alive and active for our sake, in the Church and in the world today …. In the living river of Tradition, Christ is not 2,000 years away but is really present among us and gives us the Truth, he gives us the light and makes us live and find the way towards the future.”
The most common mistake is to view Tradition and Scripture as two separate, non-overlapping circles on a page, each with their own individual doctrines. In truth, both Scripture and Tradition have essentially the same content, and often what is implicit in one source is more explicit in the other. The more accurate view is to see Tradition as the lens by which Scripture is read, otherwise reading the New Testament devoid of Tradition is like listening in on only one end of a telephone conversation.
As for examples of Tradition being important when Scripture is only implicit at best: formation of the Canon, the teaching that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, that we can and should pray directly to the Holy Spirit, that we should baptize infants, the way to properly understand the “charismatic gifts” of the Holy Spirit, etc
If it is still available, Yve Congar’s book Tradition and Traditions is a must read for an understanding of tradition.
Amazon has a papeback edition of the Meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar with an introduction by Cardinal Avery Dulles.
Sacred Tradition is the rule of faith, together with but logically prior to Scripture, but Tradition must not be understood as a hidden or esoteric stream of revelation dwelling alongside the Bible. For the Church, in the
words of Dei verbum, Tradition is all that she is and all that she believes [DV 8]. Tradition is both the way of life and worship of the Church [see Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: The Biblical, Historical, and Theological Evidence for Catholic Teaching on Tradition (Burns and Oates, 1966), 51-56] and regula fidei, the normative expression of faith by which the Church judges not only the interpretation of Scripture but also theological discourse. Congar writes that the “essential idea” of Tradition “is that of the transmission of a body of truths and principles of life, both normative and efficacious for salvation” [Congar, 26]. The sense of the faith manifests Tradition so that “the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life” [LG 12]. By “manifests Tradition” we imply that Tradition “is never accessible in itself, in its pure form, but only comes to us via some kind of concrete mediation” [Aidan Nichols, The Shape of Catholic Theology (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1991), 181]. The sensus fidei expresses itself, i.e. manifests Tradition, through the “monuments” of Tradition or, in medieval terminology, the documenta, i.e., “realities connected with and having a value for teaching” [Congar, 425]. The monuments of Tradition form the list of theological “places” - loci theologici - places where one can look for properly evaluating theological work. Scripture is, of course, the primary locus of theology and the primordial monument of Tradition.
To Mark Shea- No offense taken. It’s so funny though. It seems like a person who is a life-long Roman Catholic, BUT who has read the Bible, CAN’T be Catholic anymore. Granted, most of us leave the church. But there are MORE like me, that are Catholic, and yet, we’ve read the Bible, and we stay in the church anyway. Where would I go? I have never been associated with any other church, since I was 4 weeks old. It’s hard to be like me. I used to be “Cradle Catholic” and some other Catholics on the blog had issues with me - because I THINK, and I ASK QUESTIONS - two things Catholics are NOT TO DO. So - I changed my name to Born Again Cradle Catholic, because I don’t know what else to call myself, in order to describe who I am. I’d been Cradle for 10 years - I like that name.
And I think it’s good discipline to even eat fish on Friday in Lent. God help me.
To Cradle: Still not sure what you were trying to say in response to my post above.
BACC:
If thinking and asking question is something Catholics should not do, then it’s a mystery that St. Thomas Aquinas is a saint of the Church. As to reading the Bible, your are not as alone in that as you suppose. If you’ve never encountered him, you might consider taking a look at Scott Hahn’s work—or Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth, which is as careful a work of Scripture study as you could want. It’s *because* I read the Bible that I am in the Church.
Mark - It’s so funny you should mention St. Thomas Aquinas. This is just my hunch - but, I’d say if Thomas were alive today, he would NEVER be declared a saint. Some of what I’ve heard attributed to Aquinas would disqualify him. The reason? He used his brain, not just his memory skills. The ideal Roman Catholic does not think - all we need do is know catechism, and every single OTHER bit of Catholic data, even if it’s some dead pope’s dream (and he may have just eaten garlic that night!) Each bit of this information is “Sacred Tradition” for us, and on par with the Bible, for most Catholics. The Bible is used as a sort of “spell check” on a computer, just to be sure a vague verse can be applied to an already determined belief, if needed. Whereas, I use the Bible as the Gold Standard of Measure. That is why, even though I’m a life-long Catholic, I just don’t fit in anymore. Several other born-again Catholics, like me, don’t fit in either. But then St. Thomas Aquinas would not fit in today either! By the way, I’m not part of the Catholic Charismatic Movement & I don’t speak in tongues. I just speak and pray, in English. I’ve heard some of Jesus of Nazareth - thanks for the suggestion. I applaud Pope Benedict for his knowlege of Scripture. I wish he’d focus more on that (the Gold Standard of Measure) instead of “Sacred Tradition”-dating from the Middle Ages, or later. Thanks for your kindness to me though, Mark. In all seriousness, it really is much appreciated. And thank you for writing your articles & for the opportunity to comment.
Yes. Well. I’m glad you are here to stoop down to us stupid Catholics, BACC, and lift us up to your intellectual heights. Mighty condescending of you. I’d talk more, but I have to get back to my meaningless rote prayers and mindless repetition of Tradition without regard for Scripture.
eye roll.
To David T: You wrote, “I like the idea that Sacred Tradition is more like a living, growing organism than a precise set of doctrines.”
Cradle’s reply-
If we do not have a precise set of doctrines, we have no Creed. When we do not stand for something, we fall for anything. Having a “living, growing organism” makes the Church vulnerable to false teachers and false teaching. The only way to know truth from error, is to read Scripture (Old and New Testament), as it is God’s revealed Word to us.
Some time ago, a bank had issues with counterfeit bills, and it placed all of its tellers in a 3 day class to learn how to spot valid bills from fake ones. For almost all 3 days, tellers handled only *legitimate* currency, not one fake bill was in the batch. After having so much experience handling *real* bills, a fake bill was slipped in too. Tellers spotted the fake from the real in a jiffy- equipped to do so, after having been so familiar with the real bills.
It’s the same with the Bible - knowing the Bible inside and out is the only way we can spot God’s truth from man-made fiction. Inside fiction, is of course, a bit of truth. Like using verses from the Bible out of context, and considering it a doctrine on its own.
Our precise set of Christian doctrines is called, “The Deposit of Faith”. It is what the Apostles left for us, and it is the Church that Jesus said He would never leave, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. A living and growing organism, in a Church, is not good. In fact, it is dangerous. It is how one strays from the Deposit of Faith, and God’s revealed Truth.
To Mark Shea- I was one of you about 15 years ago. So were my Catholic friends. But keep your Bibles open & there’s hope - one grows out of it!
I think some further light could be shed by on the topic of Tradition by some comments which Pope Benedict made when he was still just Cardinal Ratzinger. In the document entitled, The Message of Fatima, there is a section entitled “Theological Commentary.” It is here that the future Pope gives yet another important aspect of the Church’s teaching on Tradition. He does this first and foremost by putting it in the context of Dei Verbum, No. 8. There we read (please note in particular what I have italicized): “For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, (cf. Lk 2:19, 51), through the intimate understanding of the spiritual things that they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth” In the same section, the Council further clarifies: “This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit …. For as the centuries succeed on another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her …. Thus God, who spoke of old uninterruptedly converses with the Bride of the beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads into all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (cf. Col 3:16).” What is perhaps most striking is that the present Pope then went on to add the statement that “In this context it now becomes possible to understand rightly the concept of ‘private revelation’ which refers to all the visions and revelations which have taken place since the completion of the New Testament.” He adds that Jesus was referring also to private revelations when he said: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority … He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (Jn 16:12-14). The importance that the present Pope gave to private revelation would probably still be a surprise to many engaged in the work of writing theology because it clearly runs so contrary to the general choice of topics in contemporary theological journals. The idea that private revelation should be viewed in the context of tradition has, however, in fact been the praxis of the Church, as is evident in the liturgical year. Thus, to name just a few, there is a feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, there is the solemn celebration of the Feast of the Sacred Heart, and most recently there has been the introduction of the Feast of Divine Mercy, which is part of the devotion which was spread by St. Faustina Kawalska. Nevertheless, within the contemporary Catholic Church, there is a very strong tendency to confine discussions and interest in private revelations in our own times to a kind of “ghetto” in publications that are aimed at limited group within the general public rather than more academic circles. In short, there is a lack of truly scholarly interest about private revelations in theological journals. From what we have seen, this attitude is not in harmony with the Magisterium and it therefore is a mistaken attitude. This reduction of the contents of private revelation to some sort of theological ghetto is clearly not the mind of the Church nor of our present Pope. This is also not the reality that we see in the history of the Church. Already in the early days of the Church, St. Paul had warned his readers not to “despise prophetic utterances” (2 Th 5:20). We also see that “prophets” were a recognized group within the Church itself (cf. 1 Cor 12:28, Acts 13:1-2). The fact that this is not limited to apostolic times is confirmed by the lives of various saints who were noted for this charism. In fact, this charism is common in Church history. Pope John Paul II named two saints as patronesses of Europe who were noted for private revelations and prophecy: St. Catherine of Siena and St. Bridget of Sweden. These two saints even wrote letters to the Popes with urgent messages from Christ about the practical work of guiding the Church. It is therefore precisely in the realm of prophecy that the future Benedict XVI considers these writings referred to as private revelations, remarking that they, “explain the will of God for the present, and therefore show the right path to take for the future.” Thus, he adds: “To interpret the signs of the times in the light of faith means to recognize the presence of Christ in every age. In the private revelations approved by the Church – and therefore also in Fatima – this is the point: they help us to understand the signs of the times and to respond to them rightly in faith.” Earlier in the same section on private revelations, the future Pope, quoting the Catechism, had put it in this way: “’It is not their role to complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history’ (No. 67).” This reference to the “definitive Revelation” is a reminder of something the Pope had earlier said in this same section. He had mentioned a section of the Catechism which quoted a famous text of St. John of the Cross in which St. John states that God, “In giving us his Son … has no more to say” (No. 65). At first glance this might seem to exclude any such thing as private revelation, but he notes that the very next question adds this qualification: “…even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made fully explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the centuries” (No. 66). It is for this reason that the future Pope also quotes in his comment the passage of St. John’s Gospel on the Holy Spirit, where Christ says: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth …. for he will take what is mine and declare it to you’ (Jn 16:12-14).” Someone might be alarmed that the Pope’s stress on private revelations might open the doors to a mob of over-excited visionaries. However, the need for discernment by the Magisterium has traditionally been recognized in the Church throughout her history, and this is discussed in the document Lumen Gentium (On the Church) under the topic of charisms (N. 12). There it states the general principle that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit” (1 Cor 12:7). But it goes on to state more precisely: “Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple…. Those who have charge over the Church should judge the genuineness and proper use of these gifts through their office not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good (cf. Th 5:12 and 19-21).” Moreover, for all those who are tempted to a “sola scriptura” view of Revelation, the Catechism reminds us that, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be include in the list of the sacred books” (No. 120). Thus, the teaching of the Church on the importance of private revelations is really clear, but academic theology really seems quite unwilling to write serious articles that attempt to examine carefully the riches that God continues to bestow on his Church in this way. This lack of coherence with the Church’s teaching on the role of Tradition and private revelations can hardly be of benefit to theological thinking nor to the life of the Church. It is a deliberate choice, as it were, to see without one eye. It effectively ignores all we have seen above. A glance at typical theological journals will reveal a truly amazing wealth of topics that are considered in the light of theology, but themes from private revelation are almost always ignored in such scholarly publications. Thus, at Fatima, Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. She later asked Sister Lucy to promote specific practices connected with the six first Saturdays of the month. St. Margaret Mary Alacoque promoted practices connected with the nine first Fridays of the month and devotion to the Sacred Heart. We could go on to speak of other saints, revelations, and devotions that are too many to mention here. These topics, however, and others of this nature, are clearly not considered to be worthy of serious theological study if one judges by the topics treated in typical theological reviews. This is truly remarkable when one looks at some of the topics that are taken up and which at times can be quite far removed from the everyday life of the Church. Such an approach in such a universal and systematic way indicates a kind of practical chasm between the Church’s teaching on the value of Tradition and the value given to it in contemporary theological thinking. And this neglect has an important negative impact on the thinking of priests and many members of the laity as well. Not only do they remain ignorant of private revelations, they are inclined by this bad example to see them as of little importance in the life of the Church. Sadly this bad example is given by theologians who are often priests. The example of the Popes of our century, however, shows that these devotions are seen by them as something beneficial to the salvation of souls, which is the mission of the Church. It is worth noting that even recently approved devotions, which are certainly rich fields for totally new theological investigation, such as the “Lady of All Nations,” are also normally ignored in what would be called scholarly journals. In the light of the Church’s teaching about Tradition since apostolic times, one must certainly ask why this is true. It is not my wish to try and guess what the causes are for this anomaly. What I would like to do, however, is encourage serious theologians to do their work in a way that removes this chasm between the teaching of the Church on the importance of Tradition and the praxis of theologians in neglecting to study and comment on living Tradition as part of their role of serving today’s Church. To the readers of theology, I can only plead with them not be be put off by this strange aversion for private revelations. This area of private revelations is a fruitful area of study and offers benefits to anyone who is truly interested in knowing more about the ways of our saving Lord. As it is put so well in God’s holy word: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways about your ways and my thought above your thoughts” (Is 55:8-9). This is still true today.
Cradle—The Church is a living organism. It’s the body of Christ. If it doesn’t grow, it dies. We have the Deposit of Faith—Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition—to guide us as we live and grow into our baptismal calling in Christ.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.