In my recent ruminations on Sola Scriptura, drawn from a Jaroslave Pelikan (Mary Through the Centuries
If the First Council of Nicea was a legitimate development and the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 … an illegitimate development, what were the criteria biblical and doctrinal, for discerning the difference?
and
Perhaps nowhere, however, was the challenge of this dilemma more dramatically unavoidable than in the relation between the development of the doctrine of Mary and its purported foundation in Scripture.
More generally, this is a question that philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre queries in his book Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
I’m not at all comfortable pointing to “history” (which is a bit ambiguous, I think) as a criterion for legitimate developments of tradition. After all, it’s not clear to me that one’s history is infallible (which it seems is needed for the criterion). In addition, if we make one’s history the criterion, then it seems we undercut the demand that each of us question our history to ensure its truthiness (and thus, for instance, leave our tradition if we find it faulty).
And a little (more likely a lot) of explanation is needed … for that, dive in. And as always, remember, these thoughts I write down are both speculative (not mature) and not yet discussed. And by that, I mean they are not mean authoritatively.
Being that these ideas are still a little unpolished and in formational stages, I’m going to resort to that dread expositional technique (which is probably too often my practice), namely the dread bullet list.
- Philosophical, modern political idealogical, theological communities seem to universally and naturally form. There are a variety of methods behind their accretion. Two general subtypes might be suggested, corporate and charismatic/individual community. Examples of corporate might be the development of British (and American) legal common law. As examples of individual communities we might find, Arius (or Protestant reformers?), that is charismatic teachers developing themselves or in very small groups a coherent body which then gets adopted.
- We all belong to many of communities of thought such as these. These as well, to misquote Gould, are very often overlapping magisteria. Some overlap is benign, some less so. The human animal can withstand quite a bit of contradiction in this manner internally, however, such “creases” often form focal lines for the development of new communities springing from new corporate or individual inspiration.
- But the question we are seeking here, are means to compare such communities of thought in a general fashion. Necessarily, unless one is dishonest (with oneself) or unsatisfied one will never think that the other has a better viewpoint. At best, one might lie to oneself and figure “they’re all the same.”
- However, in the writings of St. John Cassian, quoted by me much much earlier (and I’ll hunt the passage down later), Abba Moses is questioning the visitors (John and others) about what is the most important virtue. This virtue, after some discussion, he claims is discernment. And, in the reading … how is discernment done? And, when judging other communities what factors come into play? Abba Moses teaches, if my reading is correct, that discernment is not just an individual virtue. Discernment is a thing, which is best done in communion with others. Via teaching, discussion, and sharing of thought.
- History comes into play in two ways. First, it is in a large part a matter of personal history as to how you come to be in the communities in which you reside intellectually. As well, the particular communities play out in a historical setting. Where does our particular community fit in the historical tree of such communities. How do we feel, or what do we discern about the rightness of being “there”. What are the features, compared and described in a historical perspective of your particular communities.
- Finally, this ties for theology and religious communities, to Vladimir Lossky’s notions of vertical and horizontal transmission. Horizontal, being man to man to man. Vertical being man to God. Tradition and Scripture form the content of horizontal transmission. Vertical is the historical outworking of the church and the rest of Tradition. That a pariticular feature of tradition is rightly seen as a Vertical transmission of the outworking of the Spirit … that is discernment (and not a thing done in isolation).
Mark,
I think the last point is the most important. I agree that history comes into play–the question is whether it should be a criterion for truth (at least, I think that’s the question).
You say: “Tradition and Scripture form the content of horizontal transmission.”
Maybe I don’t understand this (haven’t gotten to Lossky yet), but if Scripture is simply a “horizontal” transmission than how does it have authority over ALL communities? That is, if it’s not a vertical transmission, from God to man, then haven’t we stripped it of its status as message bearer of the redemption *to the community*?
You go on: “Vertical is the historical outworking of the church and the rest of Tradition. That a pariticular feature of tradition is rightly seen as a Vertical transmission of the outworking of the Spirit … that is discernment (and not a thing done in isolation).”
Why not make tradition the horizontal, and hence important (because we’re humans and so we are historical beings), but not authoritative (because we’re humans and we’re sinful beings)?
Matt,
The Lossky reference isn’t from anything I’m guessing is in your your in-box. It’s from the introduction to the Lossky Ousspensky Icon book, I had blogged briefly about it.
If you email me, your current address, I’ll Xerox the Intro and mail it to you. I’d appreciate your comments.
Mark,
I’d love to read it. 3314 Russell Blvd #12, Saint Louis MO 63104.