Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the order between Tradition considered actively and Tradition considered objectively in the method of treatment.

« Where divine Tradition considered in itself and its authority are at issue, the question to be raised is not so much about the truths handed down as about the mode and organ of Tradition; for the former is subordinated to the latter, and once the latter is settled the former too must be reckoned settled. »

In this thesis we inquire into the very method of treatment. For divine Tradition can be spoken of in two ways: a) so that the inquiry is chiefly about Traditions in the objective sense, whether besides the truths set forth in Scripture there exist revealed doctrines, and have come down even to us, either not comprehended in the Scriptures at all, or not so comprehended that they could be understood from the Scriptures alone; to which question there is then subordinated, as it were in second place, the further question of the mode by which they were preserved and propagated down to us. Or b) the primary and principal inquiry can be about the principle itself, whether Christ instituted another mode, another organ besides the Scriptures, by which doctrine and institutes revealed by himself or by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles might be propagated perpetually and preserved in their integrity and sincerity equally safely, indeed in a certain respect even more safely, than by the instrument of writings. Once this has been demonstrated to be so, it will thereby be established that all truths transmitted to us by this divinely instituted mode and organ, regarded as revealed, if viewed according to this mode of transmission distinct from the Scriptures, are divine Traditions in that objective sense, and, if they are not contained in the Scriptures, are the word of God handed down only and not written.

Now if this twofold question is considered in itself, it is evidently prior and more universal to ask whether there exists such an organ and mode of propagation besides the Scriptures, than to ask whether there exist truths propagated in that mode distinct from the Scriptures. Moreover, whichever of the two questions is placed first in the order of treatment, certainly no discourse on the authority of Tradition can be held without demonstrating the divinely instituted mode and organ of Tradition itself, since that authority is derived from the divinely instituted mode of Tradition itself, or rather is identified with it. It is no wonder, then, that the holy Fathers, when they speak of Tradition and its authority expressly, are chiefly concerned to set forth the mode and organ of Tradition and to demonstrate its divine institution. So Irenaeus throughout; Tertullian in Praescript. c. 15. ff.; Augustine, de utilit. credendi; Lérins in the commonit. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. IV.

Furthermore, if we consider the matter polemically, the general and by far the chief controversy with the Protestants concerns the principle itself, whether besides the instrument of the Scriptures there is some mode and some organ by which doctrine first handed down by Christ and the Apostles is safely preserved sincere and entire.¹ It is this very thing that they were compelled to deny, in order to defend their heresy and their denial of many chapters of Catholic doctrine, because they saw, namely, that if that principle were retained it would follow of itself that the doctrine proposed by the Church and rejected by them in the sixteenth century is divine Tradition itself. For if that organ of conservation is the apostolic succession itself of the ever-living and indefectible magisterium of the Church, once this is admitted the revealed truths must now be learned and known from these very divinely instituted guardians of the deposit; and consequently, once that general principle is demonstrated, the particular questions about individual divine Traditions must be reckoned settled. « The order of things required that first be set forth what alone is now to be disputed: to whom the faith itself belongs, whose are the Scriptures, by whom and through whom and when and to whom the discipline was handed down by which men become Christians; for where it appears that the truth of Christian discipline and faith is (that is, the legitimate succession from the Apostles, and the right and authority of preserving Christian discipline and faith), there will be the truth of the Scriptures (the genuine canon) and of expositions (the genuine sense) and of all Christian Traditions » Tertull. Praescript. c. 19.