In the past, when I thought about “Scripture and Tradition” I imagined Tradition as some set of propositions that differed from Scipture simply because they happened to not be written down. This is suggested, perhaps, by the locus classicus for the dichotomy of scripture and tradition, 2 Thess. 2:15. But this is too limiting. Tradition must also include those things whose being does not consist in being written down or recorded – like things to be done. Scripture records a eucharistic meal, for example, but such a meal does not exist in history as something recorded but as something done and repeated: the command was to do this in memory of Christ. The being of a community cannot be exhausted by the recordable, for the only community that exists in this way is a fictional one. Hamlet has no existence outside the play.
Pages
Blogroll
- Agent Intellect
- Alexander Pruss
- Assimilatio Dei
- BERQ. ON LOGIC
- BERQUIST ON PHILOSOPHY
- BERQUST PHYSICS
- Documenta Catholica Omnia
- Don Colacho
- Edward Feser
- Fr. Alain Contat
- Joseph Bolin
- Latin Scholasticism Texts at Googlebooks (Scroll down to comments)
- Leah Libresco
- Lee Faber and Michael
- Mark Shea
- Matthew Peterson
- Maverick Philosopher
- Mike Flynn
- New Empiricism
- Robert Godwin
- Siris
- THE LIBRARY
- The Only Translation of Contat’s Logica
- The Whirlpool's Rim
- Thomist News
- Victor Reppert
- Vital Remnants
- WHAT IS FORCE?
Recent Comments
One on An account of the basis of Phy… love the girls on A Catholic’s view on con… K. Mapson on Deism and creation Evan on Horace on the disappointment o… thenyssan on A Catholic’s view on con… Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Thirteen by Beccary.
The Ubiquitous said,
June 20, 2012 at 11:16 pm
How do we know which repeated things are tradition and which are the ossified remains of the effects of original sin? (Slavery would be the heckler’s example, but certainly better ones could be contrived.)
James Chastek said,
June 21, 2012 at 11:35 am
That’s the same sort of question, I suppose, as asking how we know that some writings are Scripture and others aren’t. Why include The Gospel of Matthew and not the Gospel of Thomas? Why include Hebrews, Revelation, Ephesians, Tobit, Wisdom? If we found Q or Corinthians 1.2 (there’s a hypothesis that there was a letter between 1 and 2 Cor.) would they be Scripture? How would we know if we found either text?
Even if we answered “The Church” to all these questions, there are still distinctions: does the Church only say that something is Scriptural, or does it also explain why? If it explains why, is this by its own unique competence, or through some auxiliary science or inquiry?
thenyssan said,
June 21, 2012 at 6:02 pm
It’s one of those basic points of theology becomes more illuminating no matter how long you dwell on it. Scripture and Tradition are sources OF TRANSMISSION. They’re analogous to song and dance, books and plays, painting and sculpture. They differ as modes, not as content.
It can’t be treated like “data from an archaeological find in Jerusalem” and “data from an archaeological find in Athens.”
The Ubiquitous said,
June 22, 2012 at 1:39 am
… but the content of Scripture and the content of Tradition — by which we mean Tradition which is not scripture — while they overlap, rhyme and harmonize, are not identical. Tradition posits the whole truth because it includes scripture.
Really, the only reason it seems we can determine extra-scriptural tradition is capital-T tradition or not is because of the teaching authority of the Church. So it really does seem to boil down to: “I believe it because the Pope says so,” if not “all the bishops.”
thenyssan said,
June 22, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Sort of. The way you’re responding is making Tradition the same thing as the Deposit of Faith. The Deposit, or just Revelation, is transmitted by Scripture and Tradition. There’s one sense in which the difference in mode means a difference in what is handed on because of the natural limits of the mode (this seems to be what your first sentence drives at). In another sense, the two modes just pass on the Gospel, Christ–there’s no difference of content at all.
The Ubiquitous said,
June 23, 2012 at 7:48 am
So would the difference be a matter of our ability to perceive the same content? Would it be accurate to say that scripture and other tradition proceed from the same reality?
Non-scriptural tradition seems like an abstracted category we only think of for the sake of thoroughness, like “prime matter.” It is always exercised by the authority of the office of apostle, now named bishop. Would tradition of this kind it be better described as the fruits of the everlasting Magesterium?
thenyssan said,
June 24, 2012 at 11:34 am
I’m not sure how much I would put emphasis on our reception of the content, although your idea probably has something going for it. Without making the divine too human, I’d liken it to learning about the events of the Iliad through interpretive dance as opposed to a sung poem. There’s something about the mode itself that determines how and what we receive and they don’t have to be reduced to symbolizing propositions.
I’m not exactly sure how to respond to your second paragraph because I’m not sure I understand it. When I first read it I thought you were talking about traditions vs. Tradition, but I’m not sure that’s a correct reading on my part anymore.
The Ubiquitous said,
June 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Translated: When we speak of scripture as opposed to tradition we should rather say scripture as opposed to the Magesterial declaration. Both are subsets of Tradition, and they are in harmony.
Dan said,
June 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
@ thenyssan: You wrote, “I’m not sure how much I would put emphasis on our reception of the content”…. How would you differentiate between our reception of revelation and our mode of communicating it? Can we so easily separate reception and transmission?
thenyssan said,
June 25, 2012 at 9:07 am
Dan,
I only meant for the point that I was hashing out with TU. I do agree that how we receive what is communicated in these modes matters for the full picture of how Revelation “gets to us.” But I don’t think that differences in our reception fully explain why Scripture and Tradition are different modes. The modes themselves differ; for that reason and for other reasons our reception differs.
Also, I’m not sure how comfortable I am saying “our mode of communicating.” Scripture and Tradition are Divine modes of communicating that make use of the human. My communication of Revelation enjoys no charism of inerrancy or infallibility (much as I might often assume otherwise!). For the point under discussion, I’m not even sure it makes sense to say that I communicate Revelation.