The proposition submitted for study in a former article was this: "The fundamental cause of the present world crisis is that men in positions of responsibility, both in the church and in the state, have exalted the creature above the Creator." Viewing the matter from the Protestant standpoint, I pointed out that a thoughtful analysis of the interpretation given by the Modernist to the essential facts of the gospel, indicates clearly that there has been a reversion to the same principle of idolatry which prevailed in the Roman Empire when the apostles went out to preach the gospel of Christ. To be sure it is expressed in a different way, better adapted to win acceptance on the part of those who pride themselves on their superior intellectual attainments, but in reality it is the substitution of self for God, a philosophy which attempts to explain all things, both in nature and in grace, as the natural result of the working of impersonal law apart from a personal God, exalting human wisdom above any divine revelation. I hope to develop this phase of the subject more fully in a later article, but just now I will deal with the real significance of some of the Roman Catholic theology.
First I ask, Do Roman Catholic theologians concede any more authority to the Scriptures than even the radical modernist? It is only fair that the answer to this question should be sought in Roman Catholic documents, and I will therefore turn to them.
The latest authoritative utterance upon this subject is found in the decrees of the Vatican Council held in Rome in 1870. I quote as follows:
"(Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the church, declared by the Sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand.)* And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error, but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the church herself."'
The relation between the Holy Scriptures and tradition is clearly set forth in the authoritative creed of Pope Pius IV, "composed at the conclusion of the General Council of Trent (capital of the Austrian Tyrol), held . . to meet the errors of the first Protestants. Luther, Calvin, and others, then spreading." The paragraphs dealing with this matter read thus:
"I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same church.
"I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
In "Catholic Belief," by Joseph Faa di Bruno, the following note is appended to this portion of the creed of Pope Pius IV, explaining what is meant by apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions:
"That is, I admit as points of revealed truth what the Church declares the apostles taught as such, whether clearly or not clearly expressed or not even mentioned in the written word of God: as, for instance, that baptism is to be conferred on infants, that Sunday instead of Saturday (called the Sabbath) is to be kept
The real issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants over this question is quite clearly defined in the following statement from a Roman Catholic source:
"The Protestant principle is: The Bible, and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it, and by it alone, should all dogmatic questions, be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. Such are in this respect the two main points of controversy between Catholics and so-called orthodox Protestants (as distinguished from liberal Protestants, who admit neither supernatural Revelation nor the authority of the Bible). . . .
"Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation 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 satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers."
Here is an extract which deals rather more fully with the relative authority of the Bible and tradition:
"Besides the written word of God, Catholics believe also in the unwritten word. . . . Whenever the word of God, without any qualification, is mentioned in Holy Scripture, it should not be taken as referring exclusively to the written word, for it generally refers both to the written and unwritten word of God. . . .
"Holy Scripture and the Tradition just described are Both The Word of God: . . . neither therefore of these divine words can be rejected without the guilt of unbelief. . . .
"Some may ask: Which of these two Divine Words is the more useful to us?
"This question may be considered as answered by the Fathers already quoted. I will, therefore, make only one more citation. The Holy Bishop of Hierapolis (Papias), the disciple of St. John and friend of St. Polycarp. referring to Tradition, says: "If any one came to me who had accompanied the elders. I questioned him concerning their words, what Andrew and Peter said; for I did not think that what is in the Books would aid me as much as what comes from the living and abiding voice (author's emphasis).*
"Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths.
"Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe. . . .
"Holy Scripture cannot make good its authority without referring to Tradition to testify to its inspiration and preservation. . . .
"The Holy Scripture, when separated from Tradition, which is its support and lawful expounder, and thrown into the hands of unauthorized interpreters, instead of being a source of blessing, becomes a cause of endless contention and division, an occasion of doubt, fanaticism, and ceaseless wrangling, as sad experience proves.
"Tradition, without Holy Scripture, Old or New, sufficed for many years, and could still suffice. But Holy Scripture has never sufficed by itself ; it always stood in need of Divine Tradition; for it is only by this Divine Tradition that we learn that the Holy Scripture is an inspired book. It is only Tradition that can give with authority and certainty the right meaning of the Scriptures. Without Tradition the Holy Scriptures may be made to speak in many discordant ways, thus destroying their authority altogether. . . .
"The Fathers of the Church plainly expressed their belief that the Written Word of God by itself, without the help of Tradition, would always leave disputes unsettled, points of belief and morals undetermined, and true Religion a problem unsolved."
1 "The Vatican Council and Its Definitions," by Henry Edward [Manning], Archbishop of Westminster (R. C.), edition 1871, p. 211. D. & J. Sadlier, New York.
2 Schaff, "The Creeds of Christendom," Vol. II, P. 207. Harper & Brothers. New York.
3 Joseph Fait di Bruno, "Catholic Belief," p. 251. Author's American edition, edited by Rev. Louis A. Lambert ; Imprimatur. John Cardinal McCloskey. Archbishop of New York, June 5, 1884. Benziger Brothers, New York.
4 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV. pp. 6. 7. Encyclopedia Press. New York. Joseph Fail di Bruno, pp. 39-48.
(To be continued)
* "Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session the Fourth. Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures."
* The translation of Eusebius here given is a good example of the perversion of quoted authorities by Roman Catholic writers. The translation of this same passage made by Rev. C. F. Cruse, D. D., professor in St. Paul's College, Flushing, New York, reads thus : "If I met with anyone who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders ; what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip ; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord ; what was said by Aristion, and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord ; for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving."—"Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius, Book III, chap. MIX. Compare especially the last sentence in the two translations, and note the misinterpretation of the statement by Papias.—w. w. p.
