How Tradition Gave Us the Bible

It's still a jolt for some people to realize this, but the Bible did not fall down out of the sky, leather-bound and gold-monogrammed with the words of Christ in red, in 95 AD. Rather the canon of Christian Scripture slowly developed over a period of about 1500 years. That does not mean, of course, that Scripture was being written for 1500 years after the life of Christ. Rather, it means that it took the Church some fifteen centuries to formally and definitively state which books out of the great mass of early Christian and pseudo-Christian books constituted the Bible.

The process of defining the canon of Scripture is an example of what the Church calls "development of doctrine". This is a different thing than "innovation of doctrine". Doctrine develops as a baby develops into a man, not as a baby grows extra noses, eyes, and hands. An innovation of doctrine would be if the Church declared something flatly contrary to all previous teaching ("Pope John Paul Ringo I Declares the Doctrine of the Trinity to No Longer Be the Teaching of the Church: Bishop Celebrate by Playing Tiddly Winks with So-Called 'Blessed Sacrament'"). It is against such flat reversals of Christian teaching that the promise of the Spirit to guard the apostolic Tradition stands. And, in fact, there has never ever been a time when the Church has reversed its dogmatic teaching. (Prudential and disciplinary changes are another matter. The Church is not eternally wedded to, for instance, unmarried priests, as the wife of St. Peter can tell you.)

But though innovations in doctrine are not possible, developments of doctrine occur all the time and these tend to apply old teaching to new situations or to more completely articulate ancient teaching that has not been fully fleshed out. So, for example, in our own day the Church teaches against the evils of embryonic stem cell research even though the New Testament has nothing to say on the matter. Yet nobody in his five wits claims that the present Church "invented" opposition to embryonic stem cell research from thin air. We all understand that the Church, by the very nature of its Tradition, has said "You shall not kill" for 2,000 years. It merely took the folly of modern embryonic stem cell research to cause the Church to apply its Tradition to this concrete situation and declare what it has always believed.

Very well then, as with attacks on sacred human life in the 21st century, so with attacks on Sacred Tradition in the previous twenty. Jesus establishes the Tradition that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Mt 5:17). But when Tradition bumps into the theories of early Jewish Christians that all Gentiles must be circumcised in order to become Christians, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is still necessary to authoritatively flesh that Tradition out. Moreover, the Council settles the question by calling the Bible, not to the judge's bench, but to the witness stand. Scripture bears witness to the call of the Gentiles, but the final judgment depends on the authority of Christ speaking through his apostles and elders whose inspired declaration is not "The Bible says..." but "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).

In all this, the Church, as ever, inseparably unites Scripture as the light and Sacred Tradition as the lens through which it is focused. In this way the mustard seed of the Kingdom continues to grow in that light, getting more mustardy, not less.

How then did Tradition develop with respect to the canon of Scripture?

In some cases, the Church in both east and west has a clear memory of just who wrote a given book and could remind the faithful of this. So, for instance, when a second century heretic named Marcion proposed to delete the Old Testament as the product of an evil god and canonize the letters of Paul (but with all those nasty Old Testament quotes snipped out), and a similarly edited gospel of Luke (sanitized of contact with Judaism for your protection), the Church responded with local bishops (in areas affected by Marcion's heresy) proposing the first canons of Scripture.

Note that the Church seldom defines its teaching (and is in fact disinclined to define it) till some challenge to the Faith (in this case, Marcion) forces it to do so. When Marcion tries to take away from the Tradition of Scripture by deleting Matthew, Mark and John and other undesirable books, the Church applies the basic measuring rod of Tradition and says, "This does not agree with the Tradition that was handed down to us, which remembers that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John.

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at his bosom also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3, 1, 1)

In other words, there is, we might say, a Standard of Roots (based on Sacred Tradition) by which the Church weighs her canon. So when various other heretics, instead of trying to subtract from the generally received collection of holy books, instead try to add the Gospel of Thomas or any one of a zillion other ersatz works to the Church's written Tradition, the Church can point to the fact that, whatever the name on the label says, the contents do not square with the Tradition of the Church, so it must be a fake. In other words, there is also a Standard of Fruits. It is this dual standard of Roots and Fruits by which the Church discerns the canon -- a dual standard which is wholly based on Sacred Tradition. The Church said, in essence, "Does the book have a widespread and ancient tradition concerning its apostolic origin and/or approval? Check. Does the book square with the Tradition we all learned from the apostles and the bishops they gave us? Check. Then it is to be used in public worship and is to be regarded as the word of God."

It was on this basis the early Church also vetoed some books and accepted others -- including the still-contested-by-some-Protestants deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach and Baruch as well as some pieces of Daniel and Esther. For the churches founded by the apostles could trace the use of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in public worship (a Greek translation of the Old Testament which includes all these books) back to the apostles. In fact, many of the citations of Old Testament Scripture by the New Testament writers are, in fact, citations of the Septuagint (see, for example, Mark 7:6-7, Hebrews 10:5-7). Therefore, the Body of Christ living after the apostles simply retained the apostles' practice of using the Septuagint on the thoroughly traditional grounds, "If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us." In contrast, the churches had no apostolic tradition handed down concerning the use of, say, the works of the Cretan poet Epimenides (whom Paul quotes in Acts 17), therefore they did not regard his works as Scripture, even though Paul quotes him. It was by their roots and fruits that the Church's books were judged, and it was by the standard of Sacred Tradition that these roots and fruits were known.

These Root and Fruit standards are even more clearly at work in the canonization of the New Testament, especially in the case of Hebrews. There was, in fact, a certain amount of controversy in the early Church over the canonicity of this book (as well as of books like 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation). Some Fathers, especially in the west, rejected Hebrews (in no small part because of its lack of a signature). Yet the Church eventually accepted it. How? It was judged apostolic because, in the end, the Church discerned that it met the Roots and Fruits measure when stacked up against Sacred Tradition.

The Body of Christ had long believed that Hebrews said the same thing as the Church's Sacred Tradition handed down by the bishops. Thus, even Fathers (like Irenaeus) who rejected it from their canon of inspired Scripture still regarded it as a good book. That is, it had always met the Fruits standard. How then did it meet the Roots standard? In a nutshell, despite the lack of attestation in the text of Hebrews itself, there was an ancient tradition in the Church (beginning in the East, where the book was apparently first sent) that the book originated from the pen of St. Paul. That tradition, which was at first better attested in the east than in the west (instantaneous mass communication being still some years in the future) accounts for the slowness of western Fathers (such as Irenaeus) to accept the book. But the deep-rootedness of the tradition of Pauline authorship in the East eventually persuaded the whole Church. In short, as with the question of circumcision in the book of Acts, the status of Hebrews was not immediately clear even to the honest and faithful (such as Irenaeus). However, the Church in council, trusting in the guidance of Holy Spirit, eventually came to consensus and canonized the book on exactly the same basis that the Council of Jerusalem promulgated its authoritative decree: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

Conversely, those books which the Church did not canonize as part of the New Testament were rejected because, in the end, they did not meet both the Root and Fruit standards of the Church's Sacred Tradition. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, while meeting the Fruit standard, were not judged to meet the Root standard since their authors were not held to be close enough to the apostolic circle -- a circle which was, in the end, drawn very narrowly by the Spirit-led Church and which therefore excluded even Clement since he, being "in the third place from the Apostles" was not as close to the apostles as Mark and Luke (who were regarded as recording the gospels of Peter and Paul, respectively). The Church, arch-conservative as ever, relied on Sacred Tradition, not to keep adding to the New Testament revelation but to keep it as lean and close to the apostles as possible. This, of course, is why books which met neither the Root nor Fruit standards of Sacred Tradition, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were rejected by the Church without hesitation as completely spurious.

Not that this took place overnight. The canon of Scripture did not assume its present shape till the end of the fourth century. It was defined at the regional Councils of Carthage and Hippo and also by Pope Damasus and included the deuterocanonical books. It is worth noting, however, that, because these decisions were regional, none of them were dogmatically binding on the whole Church, though they clearly reflected the Sacred Tradition of the Church (which is why the Vulgate or Latin Bible--which was The Bible for the Catholic Church in the West for the next 1200 years looks the same as the Catholic Bible today). Once again, we are looking at Sacred Tradition which is not fully developed until a) the Reformation tries to subtract deuterocanonical books from Scripture and b) the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s finally makes that Tradition fixed and binding. This is the origin of the myth that the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonical books to Scripture at Trent. It is as historically accurate as the claim that the Catholic Church "added" opposition to embryonic stem cell research to its tradition during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

In summary then, the early Church canonized books because they were attested by apostolic tradition. The books we have in our Bibles (and the ones we don't) were accepted or rejected according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards which were based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ.

Whom/what will be our final authority to determine which of us is correct?

From the Scriptures themselves, of course. They're not all that hard to understand, really. Let's say, just for a really simplistic example, that we had a disagreement over whether apples are red or blue. The Bible says they're red; ergo, whoever said they were red is correct.

Of course, there are many areas in which two people can read the Bible and come to different conclusions. However, I've found that in such cases, there are usually one of two things occuring:

1) One or both of the two is unaware of one or more passages which either prove the point, or reconcile the two positions (I see this a lot in the predestination debates), or
2) the two aren't really as far apart in their views as they think; they're either misunderstanding each other because of semantics, or they're looking at the same object from two different angles, or they simply have different emphasises.

I think we should pick a reasonably narrow subject of disagreement between us if we're going to do this. The subjects that come to mind from this thread are: Is bowing to statues necessarily idolatry? (I'd shy away from this one just because it's already been beaten to death.) Did God move the Sabbath? Or, given that both of those fall within another, broader category, we could debate, Does the New Covenant do away with the Torah and/or does the Church have the authority to change God's commands?

We should probably limit ourselves on the number of posts, or else we just end up going in circles as each tries to "win" by simply outlasting the other. I would suggest one post each presenting our positions, followed by one post each for rebutting the other, followed by one post each for wrapping up, which may be used to either further rebut the other or to strengthen our own positions.

Rules:

While outside sources may be used as commentary on the Scriptures, remember that the Scriptures are the only source of authority that we both agree on, so that should be our focus.
Simply cutting and pasting articles by someone else isn't permitted; while referencing them as commentary is okay, we'll each speak with our own voices.
Personal attacks = losing the debate.

Also, it should be understood up front that I will not compose or post for this debate on the Sabbath, so if it runs that far, there will be a gap of time in between my posts. If you wish to similarly take Sunday off, I would both understand and encourage you to do so.

Does the above seem fair to you? I'm amenable to both ideas for our topic and to ammendments to the rules. If we can come to an agreement on both subject and structure, I'm willing to continue this thread. If not, then I think it best that we agree to disagree and wait for another thread.

"Pray tell, what DO the keys REALLY mean? "

Matt 16:13-20
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?"he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Jesus is speaking to all here. Everyone gives an answer in the background, but one gives no answer. That individual is then asked the question directly. The individual answers that he believes Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus acknowledges that the answer is correct and that He is the one that revealed Himself. He is God. Peter's faith was built on his judgement of what Jesus had taught. That is the foundation which is rock.

The keys reside in an individual's judgement. As Peter had done, all others would do as well. The judgement to be passed by each individual is on the Holy Spirit. The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven reside in that judgement made by his own hands.

Matt 12:32
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Jesus taught plenty regarding the Holy Spirit. The washing of the feet regards forgiveness, as it is asked by you in the Lord's Prayer. Matt 25 contains parables regarding the judgement passed and answer given.

Matt 25:40
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, were given to you.

It was bread and wine...blessed by Christ. The broken bread, symbolic of his body about to be broken (figuratively) and the wine symbolic of his blood about to be shed for the remission of the sins of mankind.

Thank you for having the guts to given an honest answer.

Here is the widest rift between the RCC and most (not all) of the Protestant faiths. And yet, it's the Protestants who accuse the Catholics of not being "Bible" Christians. All we do is take Christ at His Word. We don't understand the mechanics of the rite only that He said it would be and that we are to do as He did.

On what basis can anyone say that He was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper? The Synoptic Gospels thought it was important enough to give the account of Christ as saying, "This is My Body." There was no commentary, even from Matthew who was known for his little asides and explanations, to explain that Jesus didn't mean this literally. John took another approach and focused on other aspects of the Last Supper. He showed the Eucharist was an essential element of the faith, though, because in John 6 we see Jesus challenging His disciples to accept that they would eat His Flesh. When many abandoned Him in their lack of faith that what He spoke was true, He didn't explain His Words more clearly or more palatably (as He had done with many of the parables to His Apostles). When Jesus said we are to eat of His Flesh, the words used at the time translate to gnawing and mastication, not the words used in the OT for devouring the Word of God in Scripture. His disciples weren't ignorant of Scripture in their disbelief. Jesus didn't tell them to read their Bibles, He told them to eat His Flesh!

Our Protestant friends are those who walk away from Jesus in John 6 who can not accept His hard instruction because they themselves can't understand it. We Catholics accept in faith what our reason can't grasp. We believe as recorded in 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.

So we believe that Jesus gave the Apostles His Body and Blood simply because He said He did. So why do we think that when a priest does it 2000 years later, the same occurs? I could, of course, quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the early Church fathers... but Protestants only want to see it in Scripture. Ok.

The Epistles were written to correct matters of faith and the traditions the Apostles had brought to the various churches they established. They weren't written as an all-inclusive Catechesis of the faith (the fallacy of Sola Scriptura) but on narrow topics to address errors. One such Epistle of St Paul concerns the proper way to come together as a Church;

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Did you ever ask yourself how a man can be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" for unworthily eating a piece of bread? Is God a God of symbols or of truth? He hasn't set traps for us to fall into, He has given us real and true Sacraments for the strengthening of our faith.

For all those who preach Sola Scriptura and the literal Word, how can you so blithely explain away what Christ Himself said and did?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.