Reviewing a Classic.

(Yves Congar with a young Joseph Ratzinger)

It is always a pleasure reading Yves Congar.¹ One such pleasure was re-reading his classical writing on the meaning of tradition within the Catholic Church.²

Congar is easily one of Catholicism's greatest 20th century (conservative thinkers).³ His mastery of the primary writings and familiarity with the intricacies of the philosophical questions involving the perceived crux between Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition is unmatched to this very day. His work La Tradition et la vie de l'Eglise, is the most succinct and powerful treatment on the issue of tradition I have ever read.⁴

What Congar is most apt at demonstrating is the philosophical underpinnings of a given subject. So in this work he manages to explain the crucial relationship between Scripture and the unwritten traditions of the Church, or in other words, why Scripture needs the interpretative lens of tradition for a correct hermeneutical reading.

Highly recommended reading.

_____________

¹ Yves Congar was a French Dominican Cardinal, considered by many the greatest Ecclesiologist of all time (Avery Dulles). Was at one time held a P.O.W by Germans for five years as he served the role of Catholic chaplain for the French. He influenced many Catholic thinkers, such as Karol Wojtyla, etc.

² La Tradition et la vie de l'Eglise (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1964). English edition is, The Meaning of Tradition (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004).

³ Compare the utter mastery of the primary writings (patrology) and the sane treatment of the origins of the Church in Congar's double volume Ecclesiological magnum opus, La Tradition et les traditions: Essai historique (1960); Essai theologique (1963. Paris: Fayard), with the bleak and critical treatment of much of the same ground in say for example, Richard P. McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism (New York: Harper One, 2008), which was done in memory of Congar.

⁴ Nothing in today's American (popular) Catholic scene even comes close. Avery Dulles would be America's closest example, cf. his Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith (Naples, Florida: Sapientia Press, 2007).

Eusebius, The Fathers and the Nature of the Church.

Eusebius Pamphilus's¹ Ecclesiastical History2 is one of the few books that I consistently re-read every year. The reason is clear to anyone that has plunged headlong into this magnificent account of the history of the early Church, starting from Jesus and His Apostles and ending with the events and personages surrounding the Council of Nicea. Besides the treasure of information on early patristics, theology and ecclesiology what I find stunning is the testimonies of the early martyr's, how they gave up their lives for Jesus Christ.

What caught my attention today was the following discussion on the nature of the sects by

Eusebius,

"Indeed, the machinations of its (the orthodox truth) enemies were almost immediately extinguished by the power of truth; one sect rising after another, the first always passing away, and one in one way, and another in another, evaporating into speculations of many modes, and as many forms. But the splendour of the universal and only true Church constantly advanced in greatness and glory, always the same in all matters." (p. 134)

Thus Eusebius teaches us that the nature of the sects is that of schism. As soon as one branch comes into existence through the mind of an innovator another branch dies out or fades into obscurity. The opposite of all this is the nature of the One, Universal (Catholic) Church. It exists through time and space, from it's humble beginnings in the small stone houses of Jerusalem to it's ever growing branches that will house all the birds of the field. The blessed and ancient bishop of Antioch St. Ignatius wrote,

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistulae ad Smyrnaeos. 8, 2)

St. Clement of Alexandria in like manner can state that the Church is inseparable since it has as it's guardian and fountain the indivisible Trinity (Paedagogus. 1, 4, 10). The "Catholic Church" alone holds the true apostolic doctrine, since it houses the predestined elect of God (Stromata. 7, 17). For Tertullian the Catholic Church is led under the banner of One God and One Christ, one hope under one baptism, held by the whole world unanimously, she is the very bride of Solomon's Song, domina matter ecclesia (De Virg. vel. 2, 2). The Bishop of Carthage - St. Cyprian agrees with the Regula Fidei and warns to separate oneself from the Catholic Church is to separate oneself from the truth (Letter of Cyprian to Stephen of Rome. 68, 1). St. Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts us,

"And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is, - for others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord, - Nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God." (Catecheses. 18, 26).

The historic, orthodox faith is monolithic, one in nature in contrast to the schismatics who cannot agree even on the little issues. St. Augustine of Hippo records that the Catholic faith unlike the schismatics promulgates the entire council of God not just selected portions to fit erroneous theologies (Ep. 92, 23). Furthermore, her validity is based on her world wide accepted extension (Ib. 49, 3) in contrast to the single localities of the sects (Serm. 46, 18).

____________________

[End Notes.]

1. Famous bishop of Caesarea who was active in the late third and early fourth centuries. Best known for this early history of the Catholic Church from the time of Apostles up too the Council of Nicea. He took the name Pamphilus in honor of his teacher and mentor. Embroiled in the Arian battles he is sometimes looked upon with suspicion for showing kindness to Arius and other times accused of holding a neo-Arian understanding of the Divinity of Jesus. It seems however that perhaps these labels have been politically motivated by his detractors. I have not read anything in his surviving writings that confirms Arian tendencies but have witnessed just the opposite, very Orthodox. He was made perfect in 310 A.D. under the Diocletian persecution.

2. Currently using Baker's 13th print edition, 1989. Not the prettiest edition and weak notes much better editions exist.

St. Luke, Bearer of Tradition.

In my private devotional reading time of Sacred Scripture last night I started reading the gospel according to St. Luke¹. I have always been fascinated by Luke's "dedication to Theophilus" passage (V. 1-4). It has the ring of a most formal and academic venture by a mind no doubt immersed and influenced by such genre's²,

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed³."

Hence we are told the objective in the clearest manner by St. Luke in composing his gospel. In one way or another, there is a strong motivation for Luke to try his hand at a διήγησιν writing⁴. St. Luke now sets down in writing the oral traditions concerning Jesus and the events surrounding his life as precisely as he can. Notice the flow of thought, many have written but now I will write - all of us depending on the oral traditions for our material. St. Luke's gospel like all of Scripture is drawn and depends upon revelation from God, be that directly from His mouth or from the mouths of prophets and apostles as safeguarded and preserved in tradition. In Luke's case he states it was the latter that he depended upon and received.

St. Luke tells us he now has a unique contribution to make in the literary history of Jesus. Yet this uniqueness does not subtract from the reality that Luke follows closely the regula fidei as it were, the interpretive tradition. Luke tells us that "many have undertaken" thus tying himself further to a traditional thematic genre⁵. Again Luke employs another highly nuanced term, pregnant with meaning, - παρέδοσαν, this content about Jesus Christ was "delivered, handed down" to us⁶. In other words, it is not sloppy or careless accounts that Luke depends upon but rather the carefully guarded and well memorized apostolic tradition as it is handed down to him from word of mouth from eye witnesses themselves. This form of handing down was very special in the ancient world having much precedent in both Jewish and Greek cultures⁷.

And so we have the backdrop of the gospel of St. Luke. Luke's first century contemporaries would have understood the impact and specific nuance that this introductory dedication pericope conveyed. Luke is not an innovator but rather part of the tradition of early Christian interpretation, all stemming from oral tradition.

______________________

[End Notes.]

1. And this inaugurates a series of small posts I will be writing as I go through Luke.

2. The prefaces of Josephus, Herodotos, Thucydides, Polybius and other such classical works immediately come to mind. Luke was well read in the classics.

3. (Luke 1:1-4, RSVCE).

4. Much has been made over this presumed insufficieny of the prior narratives that Luke sought to eclipse. What can be said with caution is that whichever of the other gospels that already existed at the time of Luke's composition these were looked upon as positive contributions and/or sources to draw from.

5. Cf. J. Bauer, (NovT. 4, "πολλοὶ") where Luke uses πολλοὶ as a rhetorical device to fall in line with the widespread practice of oral beginnings not necessarily implying a large number.

6. Cf. Buchsel in TDNT. 171-73 for a lengthy background on παρέδοσαν and it's technical meaning as "transmission of tradition."

7. Cf. BAGD on the Greek usage of this verb. Among the Jews see for example Ep. Arist. 148, 196. In Christian usage, 1 Cor 11:23, 1 Thess4:1-2, etc. Cf. the excellent discussion in F. Godet (St. Luke. 1.60-61).

St. Paul and Tradition.

The claim is often made in popular literature that Jesus and the New Testament in general and St. Paul in particular, are hostile to tradition and the inference is then made - that they believed in a sole source of faith and morals, namely Scripture alone.

In this post we will stick to Scripture references since it is needless to marshal the Catholic Patristic Fathers who manifestly teach and defend a unified source of faith and morals, namely Sacred Tradition (oral kerygma) and Sacred Scripture (the oral teaching encapsulated in written form)¹.

We read in Holy Sacred Scripture from St. Paul to the Thessalonians,

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15, RSVCE)².

As the context makes clear (starting from verse 1) contra those who wished to lead the Thessalonian saints into eschatological heresy³ St. Paul exhorts them to stand firm, something which they were already being known for (1:3). It is on account of those blessed gifts from God (2:13-14) that the Thessalonians can even begin to stand firm⁴.

"καὶ" here is surely explicative, the way to stand firm is to hold to the traditions. The Thessalonians are to hold fast to both the oral tradition (λόγου) and to the "written letter" (ἐπιστολῆς). St. Paul would never say, "by us, the letter," as if the early Christians should only live and practice the Written Scriptures⁵. But rather, oral tradition is the foundation for the later encapsulation of it in written form as St. Irenaeus so eloquently stated. This is because the two "sources" are simply two voices of the same teachings of Jesus Christ. A distinction between the two is purely modern and a false dichotomy.

In another place this is made again clear by the same author, he writes,

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast - unless you believed in vain." (1 Cor 15:1-2, RSVCE).

A pericope that rings familiar to our reading in 2 Thessalonians. It is the oral proclamation which the Corinthians are to hold fast to. This point becomes even sharper if we are to believe the strong scholarly consensus that there was an earlier "lost" Corinthian letter that was written to them. Either way, St. Paul does not lift up the Scriptures nor his earlier letter but instead points to his living voice which is still ringing in their ears, the oral tradition as the measuring rod of salvation. St. Paul is not inventing a new trick but following the established apostolic norm, he continues on,

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received..." (1 Cor 15:3, RSVCE).

This was a common tact of Paul, to pass along doctrine via word of mouth (1 Cor 4:17). And to uphold Christian tradition is supremely commendable,

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Cor 11:2, RSVCE).

In these and many other texts it is the παραδόσεις which is highlighted. It is this oral tradition which is the gauge with which the earliest Christians were to compare all doctrinal claims⁶.

_____________________

[End Notes.]

1. A small selection of the earliest Fathers; St. Papias (Hist. Eccl. 3, 39, 3-4), St. Irenaeus (Adversus haereses. 3, 1, 1), St. Clement of Alexandria (Misc. 1, 1 ), Origen (Fund. Doct. 1, 2), Tertullian (De praescriptione haereticorum. 21, 3-7), St. Athanasius (Serapion. 1. 28).

2. The Greek reads, "ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν." Most Protestant translations (literal) read similar to the RSVCE cited above.

3. And we could say Paul's entire argument in 2 Thessalonians could be used against any heresy that threatens the Church. Moreover, notice the close relation of the wording of V.2, "λόγου μήτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν" to our text in question, "λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν." Already at the start of chapter 2 St. Paul has given us the argumentation of v.15 in fuller detail.

4. Hence, the "ἄρα οὖν."

5. Not to mention that at this time in Christian history the New Testament as we know it today was hardly known by all the early Churches. The majority of the citations in the earliest fathers and in the New Testament to the Scriptures refers to the Old Testament. The descriptions for the New Testament writings are usually made clear, such as Justin calling them "the memoirs of the Apostles." Here in our target text in Paul he is likely referring to 1 Thessalonians.

6. Wolfgang Trilling (Der zweite Brief and die Thessalonicher: EKKNT. 128-29) followed by much of the higher critical school that sees 2 Thessalonians as non-Pauline finds this idea of παραδόσεις so forceful and developed here that he holds that it was "clearly" written by a later redactor that tried to fit in later Catholic ecclesiology, vis a vis, the importance of oral tradition.