Theology and Tradition

Dear N.,

I thoroughly agree with your thoughts on the necessity of presenting in the first order the biblical case for any Catholic doctrine, and I usually lay the foundation and groundwork of the biblical sources for explaining any doctrine of the Faith, especially when engaging in dialogue with protestants or even non-Christians. The particular article you have in your possession was actually written originally for an Anglican lady of many year's Church life who is already familiar with the biblical passages often cited in the Perpetual Virginity controversy. So for her, instead of repeating and reiterating material with which she was already very familiar, I moved directly to the hermeneutic of Scripture based on the Apostolic Tradition and the conciliar consensus of the Church's fathers, doctors and saints. You might say in this instance I made an exception to a general rule with which I heartily concur.

One of the difficulties we can and often do have when presenting the biblical data for a particular dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Faith is that Holy Scripture is easily prooftexted and subjected to eisegesis, the reading into the text of a pre-conceived hermeneutic or interpretative grid. Evangelicals and other protestant Christians utilise Scripture in this fashion continually and subconsciously, often without even realising that they are in fact imposing their own 'tradition' and ecclesial reading of Scripture onto the interpretation of the text. For this reason, when writing on a theological subject, I not only usually submit the biblical pericopes and passages in question, but I immediately move to a consideration and rehearsal of the Church's authoritative interpretation of the passages as contained in Holy Tradition. For Anglicans, of course, we never divorce the text of the Bible from the living, worshipping and theologising community of the Church, for the Bible is the 'Church's Book.' The Bible is written Tradition. The sixteenth century Anglican slogan is 'the Bible and the Primitive Church' or another way of saying it is: 'the Church to teach; the Bible to prove.'

It is indeed always necessary to prove doctrine from Scripture, for only that which is contained therein or proved thereby is to be held as necessary for salvation. And so for Anglicanism and its prima scriptura (although not sola scriptura) position, appeal to Holy Writ is of the greatest and highest importance. What I have found through the years is that appealing to Scripture alone, or at least without reference to the consentient and unanimous teaching of the Fathers, the Tradition, opens one's presentation to a refutation itself based on Scripture which can be very difficult indeed to overcome. We are blessed in that we have not only the Word of God written, but also the Holy Ghost-guided way by which we can know our interpretation of the Word of God is authentic.

Two examples, one ancient and one modern, come to mind. The Arian heretics of the fourth century used explicit biblical passages in a sola scriptura approach to deny Our Lord's divinity and they were very good at it. Saint Athanasius remarks that he is quite frustrated by the cleverness, deviousness and acumen with which they used Scripture to make and defend their case. Like modern protestants, the Arians claimed to be following only the teaching and rule of Scripture in making their theological claims: you might even say they were biblical fundamentalists who considered their position to be an extremely 'conservative' one - they thought theirs was the original Christian understanding of the nature and work of Our Lord. Sophistical and intelligent as they were, they used the very same Scriptures to designate Christ a creature that the Orthodox and Catholics used to proclaim the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. The modern example of some GAFCON/CCP neo-evangelical puritans in the Anglican Communion fits the same pattern. They are essentially sola scriptura and biblical fundamentalists who protest that they hold to Scripture as to the unique and only source of revelation and authority for the Christian Faith. Yet, many of them reject the salvific necessity of the sacraments and priesthood and justify the purported ordination of women, a Christological heresy akin to Arianism, by using Scripture. They call themselves 'conservatives' and assert they are only holding to what the Bible teaches. In both examples, undoubtedly convinced and devout Christians have fallen into error because they have equally rejected the teaching and authority of Apostolic Tradition and the Rule of Faith found in the Creeds and Councils of the Undivided Church. The Bible itself demands the implementation of Tradition for the right interpretation of Scripture in such places as II Peter 1.20-21, II Thessalonians 2.15, I Timothy 3.15, and so I think we Catholics Anglicans are right on target!

All of this is simply to say that I totally agree with you and I always try to employ the 'dynamic duo' of Scripture and Tradition together when making a defence or offering an instruction on a point of Christian doctrine.