The Council and the Bible

Second in a Series

The relation between Scripture and tradition is still the crucial issue in the continuing controversy with Rome. It is the subject of one of the most important documents to emanate from the Second Vatican Council, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. (An English translation of this and the other statements issued by the council has been published under the title The Documents of Vatican II [New York, 1966]. References to this volume will use the abbreviation DV II followed by the page number.) Although the preface to this document declares that the council is “following in the footsteps of the Councils of Trent and of First Vatican” in desiring to set forth “authentic teaching about divine revelation and about how it is handed on” (DV II, 111), yet this document is very far from being a mere reaffirmation of the status quo so far as the Bible is concerned. After many centuries, the Bible has been set free. No development could be more significant and more potentially dynamic than this. Even though, as we shall see, the situation remains officially unaltered so far as tradition is concerned, and the conflict of authority between Scripture and tradition continues as intense as before, yet the setting free of the Word of God in its written form as apostolic witness to Christ and the Gospel, which is the touchstone of genuine renewal in the Church, cannot fail to have a tremendous effect within the ranks of Roman Catholicism. As the light of Scripture shines into minds and hearts prepared by the Holy Spirit, it cannot fail to shine critically on the traditions and structures of the Church itself.

Technically speaking, there is no change in the doctrine of Scripture. Not only is the equality of Scripture and tradition reaffirmed in words practically identical with those used by the Council of Trent—“both sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence” (DV II, 117)—but the inerrancy of Scripture, which Rome has ever maintained in its formularies, also receives fresh statement:

Evangelical Christians who hold a high doctrine of Scripture will find in this precise declaration an excellent point of contact, and indeed point of departure, as they engage in discussion with Roman Catholic friends.

It is well to recognize, however, that the situation is complex. Ultimately, the question is one of authority. The simplicity of the sole and supreme authority of Holy Scripture in all matters of faith and conduct (sola scriptura) on which the evangelical Christian insists is foreign to the Roman Catholic temper. The situation in the papal church is complicated by the multiplication of authority that prevails. It is complicated by the addition of tradition to Scripture as a source of authority. Thus, according to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, “sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (DV II, 117). In itself, this is quite unexceptionable, provided that the two together form a coherent and homogeneous whole; for no one denies the existence, indeed the inevitability, of tradition in the Church. But there must be a governing factor that will ensure the harmony of the two, and that governing factor is, for the Reformed Christian, Scripture itself. Article 34 of the Church of England, for example, though it admits the permissibility of a diversity of traditions in the Church, is yet emphatic that “nothing be ordained against God’s Word.”

The church of Rome, however, brings in a third factor, namely, the teaching office (magisterium) of the Church, to which is assigned the ultimate authority of judgment regarding both Scripture and tradition. The claim is made that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written [i.e. Scripture] or handed on [i.e., tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” The qualification is indeed added that “this teaching office is not above the word of God,” but nonetheless it is in effect the determinative authority in the Roman Catholic Church, since on its pronouncements depend not only the admissibility of traditions but also the very sense in which Scripture may be understood. Consequently, the source of authority for the Roman Catholic is not single (Holy Scripture), nor twofold (Scripture plus tradition), but threefold (Scripture plus tradition plus the Church’s teaching office), as in fact this Dogmatic Constitution states:

Once again, Reformed Christianity has never denied that the Church possesses authority; but it has insisted, with logical coherence, that the authority of the Church, like the authority of traditions, must be subject to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, since the Scriptures embody the authoritative Word of God to man. Thus the twentieth of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion grants the authority of the Church, but with the important proviso that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written.”

It is only fair to admit that there is a logic in the Roman Catholic position, given the premises on which it is based. If it is true that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth and his bishops the successors of the apostles, then it follows that the authority and infallibility of Christ and his apostles is inherent in their office across the centuries and, therefore, that the teaching office residing in them is invested with absolute apostolic authority. Further, if this be granted, then a complete consistency among Scripture, tradition, and magisterium must be expected. But it is precisely here that the papal pretensions are found to be altogether inadmissible. For one thing, it is demonstrable that in the Roman church both sacred tradition and the teaching office, which are dependent on each other, are at important points incapacitated by internal contradictions and incompatibilities and irreconcilable with the teaching of Scripture. For another thing, the concept of bishops as the extension of the apostolate and of tradition as the extension of the canon makes nonsense of the recognition in the early centuries of the canon of Holy Scripture; for the very idea and meaning of the term canon is that of a measuring-rod or rule to which all else must conform. The books of the New Testament were acknowledged as canonical precisely because they and they alone constituted the authentic deposit of the apostolic teaching and witness under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The definition of the canon of the New Testament deserves, then, to be adjudged the most significant development in the history of the post-apostolic Church. It drew the line of demarcation between the teaching of the apostles now contained in the pages of the New Testament (authoritative in the ultimate issue because it is the teaching not merely of the apostles but of Christ himself, our supreme and infallible authority, whose teaching they were enabled to record faithfully under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Christ had promised) and all other teaching in the Church. It set the standard (canon) by which all else—teaching, tradition, everything—must be governed.

Again, one would never wish to deny that the Church has a teaching office or function that is a very important element in its life. But we cannot assent to the claim that the teaching office of the Church enjoys a finality of authority, which in effect the Second Vatican Council claims when it reaffirms that the interpretation of Scripture “is subject finally to the judgment of the Church” (DV II, 121); for this claim is tantamount to the usurpation of the teaching office of the Holy Spirit.

Demise Of The Drugstore

A druggist has been defined as a man who stands behind a soda fountain and sells ball-point pens. I can barely remember when the corner drugstore was a place that majored in medicines and minored in ice cream. The other day I went into a drugstore and had a hot lunch, bought a note pad, and priced garden hoses. Then, out of curiosity, I set out to find the prescription counter. After walking down a long aisle of hardware and past the liquor department, I made a left turn at a men’s jacket display. I passed the toy counter, and suddenly I found it: nestled comfortably between chocolates and greeting cards was the sign that read, “Prescriptions.” Behind the counter the man with a white coat seemed so busy with his bookkeeping that I probably would have hesitated to ask him for a bottle of aspirin had I needed it.

The Church also has made some startling changes since the days of the old-fashioned drugstore. We used to preach individual redemption through Christ; now, except for a few obscurantists, we are redeeming social structures instead. We used to proclaim boldly, “Thus saith the Lord”; now we timidly ask, “Hath God said?” We once tried to point secular man to the “city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” But not being able to lick him, we have joined him in a secular city whose builders and makers are Cox, Altizer, and Fletcher. We used to proclaim the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation; now we have made it so “relevant” that it is not even necessary. The Gospel used to be good news; now it’s good advice. Clergymen used to go to jail for preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus; they still go to jail, but for other reasons.

Yet the Church still has its religion department. There are still a few diehards who haven’t yet seen the light and are living back in the dark ages of Pentecost, Wittenberg, and Enfield. While drugstores and churches race toward relevance, there will always be those who offer the healing balm for needy bodies and souls.—The Rev. W. NORMAN MACFARLANE, Calvary Baptist Church, Springfield, Vermont.

At this point the much misunderstood Reformed doctrine of the right of private judgment comes into the picture. This does not mean, as it has so frequently been caricatured to mean, a carte blanche for uninhibited individualism. It does mean, and might be better expressed as, the right of the Holy Spirit to guide and illumine the ordinary Christian in private as he studies and prays over the sacred text. It asserts the final authority of the teaching office of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the apostolic instruction of First Corinthians 2:11 ff. (as translated in the recently published Jerusalem Bible):

Thus St. Paul defines the right of private judgment under the final teaching authority of the Holy Spirit. This does not rule out the profitable teaching office of instructors, scholars, and commentators in the life of the Church; but it does make it subservient, not dominant.

The most significant chapter in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is the last one, “Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church,” for it is here that the very striking breakaway from the restrictions of past centuries receives clear expression. Although both Scripture and tradition together continue to be proclaimed as “the supreme rule of faith” and the “primary and perpetual foundation” of sacred theology, yet this chapter is a powerful appeal for unshackling and opening up the Bible. The admonition is given that “easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful” (DV II, 125), and, though all is to be done “under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church,” ministers of the divine word are counseled to be diligent in study so that they may be “able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God”; biblical scholars are encouraged to “continue energetically with the work they have so well begun”; and “all the Christian faithful” are urged to “learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the ‘excelling knowledge of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 3:8)” (DV II, 126). It is resolved, further, that “editions of the sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable comments, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation,” and that “both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.” To this the concluding exhortation is added:

No matter how much the dogmatic status quo may be entrenched and safeguarded, the placing of the Scriptures in the hands of the people must lead us to expect a liberating movement within the ranks of Roman Catholicism. There are indeed convincing signs of such a movement in many different places. We can help it forward by encouraging our Roman Catholic friends to “take up and read.” There are still many Augustines for God to pierce with the Sword of the Spirit!

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.