Ortlund Does NOT Understand Tradition

Sacred Tradition: A Synthesis

It is an unfortunate reality that the proper understanding of ‘Sacred Tradition’ has fallen on hard times. The idea is treated in a way that can only be labeled as barbaric. Some individuals are so confused in their treatment of the matter that they indiscriminately consider liturgical practices, statements of fathers, and everything in between as “Sacred Tradition.” Others, relying on a naturalistic notion, consider Sacred Tradition as basically a historical study into the explicit preaching of the Apostolic Age.

Each of these confusions are fundamentally based in a haphazard and non-systematic study of the topic more polemical than scholastic.

First and foremost, you must understand the principal organ of tradition and the establishment of the principal organ, which will go far in determining the object of tradition, how to determine tradition, etc.

Christ came to earth as a Divine Legate in order to communicate to all men what He had seen and heard from His Father so that they may be saved. Hence, He equipped certain men by teaching, joining His teaching with the promise of the Spirit of Truth and his perpetual presence.

These men, the Apostles, were to commissioned to spread this truth to the entire world in a way that was “until the end of the age.” Hence, they were given the Spirit of Truth “to eternity.” In order to fulfill this mission given to them by the Son of God, they appointed men in their place to preach the same truth given the same Spirit who will conserve the message in the Church.

These men form the “ecclesiastical magisterium.” Such men are appointed to preach and teach that message handed down by Christ through the Apostles. What they are given is called the “Apostolic Deposit.” The Apostolic Deposit preached and taught in the Church by these successors of the Apostles. This Deposit as preached and taught, passed down orally, is SACRED TRADITION in the strict sense.

NOTE, it is the DEPOSIT as preached and taught that is SACRED TRADITION. There are other things that the Apostles passed down not as preaching and teaching the Deposit, but as pastors of the nascent Church. These traditions are distinguished from the Divino-Apostolic traditions with the label “simply Apostolic” traditions.

Here, we can eliminate another distortion that is commonly had from a misunderstanding of the Tridentine decree. The Apostolic Deposit does not merely contain those things that are EXPLICITLY preached by the Apostles. When we look at any truth, we can consider it under two lights, the formal and the virtual. There is the truth itself preached and what such and such a truth implies, i.e., what can be drawn from it as a conclusion.

Hence, we should not distort tradition so far as to assume that every dogma ever taught by the Church was somehow explicitly set forth in the Apostolic Age. Rather, it is contained in the Apostolic Deposit, whether formally or virtually, explicitly or implicitly.

In reality, when we consider “Sacred Tradition,” we are considering the preaching of those principal organs (i.e., the Magisterium) as passing down the Apostolic Deposit through their teaching.

It is here that we eliminate another distortion which can be described as the “historicizing” of Sacred Tradition, which remotes its truly theological notions. When we consider the fundamental basis for Sacred Tradition, it is not found in a mere consideration of a teaching being “old” (there are many old errors), rather we consider the teaching OF THE DEPOSIT as presented TO BE BELIEVED under the guardianship of the Holy Spirit. The foundation for the inviolability of Sacred Tradition is the promised Spirit given by Christ to the ecclesiastical magisterium, not mere historicist considerations of age.

The foundation of Sacred Tradition (as we see in the most ancient writers) is the presence of the Spirit in the Church which ensures that error will not completely overtake her and that, positively speaking, the truth of Christ remains in her.

Hence, this leads to the conclusion that such a universal consensus in preaching cannot be liable to error when it is witnessing to something AS PART OF THE APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT.

This leads us to another elimination of a similar error. It is common for many to understand this consensus in a merely material way as some sort of mere agreement among scientific authorities (as we may have in an agreement amongst “experts”). Yet, this is a complete distortion of the doctrine.

When we look at this consensus of preaching, it must be qualified as a consensus IN FAITH or a consensus IN THE APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT. It is completely different to consider, let’s say, the profound theological authority of St. Augustine in teaching a certain truth as a private doctor and the authority of St. Augustine in teaching a certain truth IN FAITH.

This distortion is quite common and many theologians complain against it. As the STS states,

The authors often, especially in the manuals, argue only from the authority rather than from the consent of the Fathers...they quote some fragments of the Fathers, in which the same doctrine is asserted which they are defending. But this is nothing other than to a confirm a doctrine from the authority of the Fathers who are cited. (IB, pg. 318)

Remember, Sacred Tradition refers to the passing down of the entire teaching Church OF THE APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT. When we look at this or that Father, their teaching on a certain point may indicate that such a consensus exists, i.e., when they preach something as of the faith of the Church. Or, they may teach a certain matter on their own authority. This is fundamental to the distinction between the Fathers as theologians (which have a certain scientific authority) and the Fathers as witnesses (which has the full plenitude of the authority of Sacred Tradition).

This shows a fundamental weakness in the way in which many theologians will treat the arguments from the fathers in their theological theses.

In one case, we may bring forward a number of different fathers as teaching a truth. This, of course, is authoritative and is more or less authoritative based on the manner of insistence, the number of Fathers, etc. Yet, it is a completely different endeavor to bring forward these Fathers as indicating a truth passed down in Sacred Tradition.

It is in the latter way that we can have access to a truth that is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is the setting forth by a unanimity of the organs of tradition of a truth to be believed, i.e., of the Apostolic Deposit (cf., Ad Tuendam Fidem, CIC 750, Lumen Gentium 25, Donum Veritatis 23, Mysterium Ecclesiae 3, Professio Fidei, Munificentissimus Deus 12, Dei Filius 3, etc.).

It is for this reason that the “consensus of the Fathers” can be extended to other resources as well which evidently indicate the teaching of the entire episcopate. Hence, we may speak also of a consensus of the theologians, catechisms, manuals, etc. But, we must remember (as noted above) that it is one thing for these theologians, catechisms, manuals, etc., to act as a scientific authority (or collection of authorities) and quite another thing for them to truly act as a witnesses.

It is in this way that we can understand many difficulties that may arise when one considers this doctrine in only a material manner. Let’s take for example the Roman Catechism. The teaching of the Roman Catechism for many generations was adhered to by the entire episcopal body. Wouldn’t this mean that every pronouncement is a pronouncement of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium? No. The reason is that there are many things which are not set forth as divinely revealed to be believed. Those things that are set forth in such a manner are clearly the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but those that are not rests on the scientific authority of the Catechism itself and those who adhered to it (which is very great). Here, an analogy between Papal Teaching and the teaching of the entire episcopal body will lead to a fruitful understanding of the matter.

When demonstrating theses of theology, theologians should always keep these two quite distinct. I may quote many Fathers, Theologians, Manuals, Catechisms, etc., as very strong arguments rending a thesis probable or even certain (when there is unanimity that such is certain, otherwise a common opinion), yet such a proof will not arise to the certainty of faith unless it crosses the threshold into a consensus that such is to be believed of the Apostolic Deposit.

This resolves the many objections that are often given to this doctrine. For example, many argue for a clear consensus of the Fathers on the veniality of the request of the marital debt or the presence of the poenae sensus for infants in limbo. While it is true that such was an opinio communis among many Fathers after a certain point or perhaps all of the Fathers, the witness was not in such a manner as to indicate that such was set forward as of the Apostolic Deposit to be believed.