TRADITION
TRADITION
follow from them, as also the differences between
different Protestant sects — according as they are more
or less faithful to the Protestant jirinciple, they recede
from or approach the Catholic position.
Between Catholics and the Christian sects of the East there are not the same fimdamental differences, since both sides admit the Divine institution and Divine authority of the Church with the more or less living and explicit sense of its infallibility and inde- fectibility and its other teaching prerogatives, but there are contentions concerning the bearers of the authority, the organic unity of the teaching body, the infallibility of the pope, and the existence and nature of dogmatic development in the transmission of revealed truth. Nevertheless the theology of tradi- tion does not consist altogether in controversy and discussions with adversaries. Many questions arise in this respect for every Catholic who wishes to give an exact account of his belief and the principles he professes: What is the precise relation between oral tradition and the revealed truths in the Bible and that between the living magisterium and the inspired Scriptures? May new truths enter the current of tradition, and what is the part of the magisterium with regard to revelations which God may yet make? How is this oiEcial magisterium organized, and how is it to recognize a Divine tradition or revealed truth? What is its proper role with regard to tradition? Where and how are revealed truths jjrcserved and transmitted? What befalls the deposit of tradition in its transmission through the ages? These and similar questions are treated elsewhere in the Catho- lic Encyclopedia, but here we must separate and group all that has reference to tradition and to the living magisterium inasmuch as it is the organ of preservation and transmission of traditional and revealed truth.
The following are the points to be treated: I. The existence of Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, and the Divine institution of the living inagi.sterium to defend and transmit revealed truth and the prerogative of this magisterium; II. The relation of Scripture to the hving magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture; III. The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth; IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise role in the defence and trans- mission of revealed truth; its limits, and modes of action; V. The identity of revealed truth in the varie- ties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic development ; the identity of faith in the Church and through the variations of theology. A full treatment of these questions would require a lengthy develop- ment; here only a brief outline can be given, the reader being referred to special works for a fuller explanation.
I. Divine traditions not contained in Holj; Scrip- ture; institution of the living magisterium; its pre- rogatives. — Luther's attacks on the Church were at first directed only against doctrinal details, but the very authority of the Church was involved in the dispute, and this soon became evident to both sides. However the controversy continued for many years to turn on particular points of traditional teaching rather than on the teaching authority and the chief weapons were Biblical texts. The Council of Trent, even while implying in its ilccisions and anathemas the authority of the living magisterium (which the Protestants them.solves dared not ex])licitly deny), while appeahng to ecclesiastical tradition and the sense of the Church either for the determination of the canon or for the interpretation of .some pa.ssages of Holy Scripture, even while making a rule of inter- pretation in Biblical matters, did not pronounce explicitly concerning the leaching authority, con- tenting itself with saying that revealed truth is found
in the sacred books and in the unwritten traditions
coming from God through the Apostles; these were
the sources from which it would draw. The Council,
as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not
contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the
Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the
Apostles to the Church.
Holy Siriplurr is ihcrefore not the only theological sovirce of i In' i;r\ dai ion made by God to His Church Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to be satis- fied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of con- troversy between Catholic theologians and the Re- formers. The designation of unwritten Divine tradi- tions was not always gi\-en all the clearness desirable, especially in early times; however Catholic contro- versialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infvision? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers w-ere more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Satiuvlay. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible. Calvin jiarried the blow by having recourse to a certain taste to which the Divine word would manifest itself as such in the same way that honey is recognized by the palate. And this in fact was the only loophole, for Calvin recog- nized that no human authority was acceptable in this matter. But this was a very subjective criterion and one calling for caution. The Protestants dared not adhere to it. They came eventually, after rejecting the Divine tradition received from the Apostles by the infallible Church, to rest their faith in the Bible only as a human authority, which moreover was especially insufficient under the circumstances, since it opened up all manner of doubts and prepared the way for Biblical rationalism. There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scrip- tures, for the total ins])iration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine t est iiiiony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it w'ould bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ.
In a similar way they show that they cannot dis- pense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magislr.acy for the .solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hin liber est in quo (jua'rit sua dogmat.a quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal
