Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:32:37.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quo Vadis? Tradition From Irenaeus To Humani Generis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Heiko A. Oberman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This year's topic for the Dudleian Lecture is designated as ‘Roman Catholicism and Protestantism’, or, in the words of the statutes, this lecture is intended: ‘For the detecting and convicting and exposing the idolatry of the Romish church, their tyranny, usurpations, damnable heresies, fatal errors, abominable superstitions and other crying wickednesses in their high places; and finally, that the Church of Rome is that mystical Babylon, that man of sin, that apostate church, spoken of in the New Testament.’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1963 , pp. 225 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 225 note 2 Tertullian, , De Praescriptione Haereticorum 4.7: ed. Scriptores christiani primae-vi (Hagae Comitis, 1956), p. 11.Google Scholar

page 227 note 1 van Leer, E. Flesseman, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen, 1953), p. 191Google Scholar. See further van den Brink, J. N. Bakhuizen, ‘Traditio im theologischen Sinne’, Vigiliae Christiana 13 (1959), pp. 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cullmann, O., ‘“Kyrios” as Designation for Oral Tradition concerning Jesus’, Scottish Journal of Theology [S.J. T.] 3 (1950), pp. 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 227 note 2 Strom. VI.63; VI.106. It has been suggested that Clement would here betray gnostic influences; Bardy, G., La thiologie de I'Eglise. I. De St. Clément de Rome á St. Irénéc (Paris, 1945), p. 176.Google Scholar

page 227 note 3 ‘… qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum sccundum placitum Patris acceperunt.’ Adv. Haereses 4.26; ed. W. Wigan Harvey (Cantabrigiae, 1857), II, p. 236. van den Eynde, Damien points out that this charisma is not ‘une grâce distincte de la vérité, sorte d'infaillibilité’. It is the truth of revelation itself Les normes de I'enseignement crétien dans la litterature patristique des trois premiers sṫécles (Gembloux, 1933), p. 187.Google Scholar

page 228 note 1 Cullmann, Oscar, ‘Scripture and Tradition’, in S.J.T., 6 (1953), p. 116Google Scholar. Also in Christianity Divided, ed. Callahan, Oberman, O'Hanlon (New York, 1961), PP. 7–33.

page 228 note 2 van den Brink, J. N. Bakhuizen, ‘Tradition und Heilige Schrift am Anfang des dritten Jahrhunderts’, in Studia Catholica 9 (1953), p. 109Google Scholar. Cf. Geiselmann, J. R.: ‘Dass in der Heiligen Schrift nur ein Teil des apostolischen Kerygmas niedergelegt sei, davon weiss wohl die gegen die Reformation gerichtete Kontrovers-Theologie, davon weiss aber die Theologie der Vaeterzeit nicht.’ ‘Die Tradition’, ed. Feiner, , Truetsch, , Boeckle, , Fragen der Theologie heute (Einsiedeln, 1957), p. 97.Google Scholar

page 228 note 3 cf. the statement of Congar, Ives: ‘II [Tavard] semble en effet leur attribuer une position trés proche de celle de certains apologistes catholiques du XVIe siécle, e.g. pour lesquels c'est I'Eglise qui a disceré les livres inspirés. Mais les Péres anciens faisaient du Canon une tradition apostolique que I'Eglise gardait et transmettait seulement.’ ‘Sainte Ecriture et sainte Eglise’, in Rev. Sc. Ph. tt Theol. 44 (1960), p. 82, n. 8.Google Scholar

page 228 note 4 Lengsfeld, Peter, Ueberlieferung. Tradition und Schrift in der evangelischen und katholischen Theologie der Gegenwart (Paderborn, 1960), esp. p. 70.Google Scholar

page 229 note 1 Adv. Haeres. II.41.4; ed. cit., I, p. 352.

page 229 note 2 ‘Non enim per alios dispositionem saluti nostrae cognovimus, quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod quidem tune praeconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostrae futurum.’ Adv. Haeres. III.I.I, ed. cit. II, p. 1.

page 229 note 3 ibid., III.3.Iff; ed. cit., II, pp. 8ff.

page 229 note 4 adv. Haeres. II.27.2; ed. cit., I, p. 348.

page 229 note 5 Haegglund, Bengt, ‘Die Bedeutung der “regula fidei” ab Grundlage theologischer Aussagen’, Studia Theologica 12 (1958), pp, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 230 note 1 Haegglund, op. cit., p. 15.

page 231 note 1 ‘Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? quid academiae et ecclesiae? quid haereticis et christianis ? nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est…’ De Praescript. Haer, 7.9; ed. cit., p. 14.

page 231 note 2 Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages (New York, 1938), p. 5.Google Scholar

page 231 note 3 op. cit., p. 11.

page 231 note 4 op. cit., p. 15.

page 231 note 5 ‘miserum Aristotelen! qui illis dialecticam instituit, artificem struendi et destruendi …’ De Praescript. Haer. 7.6; ed. cit., p. 13.

page 231 note 6 ‘nobis vero nihil ex nostro arbitrio inducere licet sed nee eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. apostolos Domini habemus auctores qui nee ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt. itaque etiamsi angelus de caelis aliterevangelizaret anahema diceretur a nobis.’ De Praescript. Haer. 6.3–5; ea., P. 12. Cf. ibid., 24.5–25.9; ed. cit., p. 2gf; ibid., 29.6; ed. cit., p. 33.

page 232 note 1 De Praescript. Haer. 4.1; ed. cit., p. 44.

page 232 note 2 ‘Hae sunt doctrinae hominum et daemoniorum prurientibus auribus notae de ingenio sapientiae saecularis quam Dominus stultitiam vocans stulta mundi in confusionem etiam philosophiae ipsius elegit; ea est enim materia sapientiae saecularis, temeraria interpres divinae naturae et dispositionis.’ De Praescript. Haer. 7.1–2; ed. cit., p. 13.

page 232 note 3 ‘interim ex fiducia probationis praevenio admonens quosdam nihil esse quaerendum ultra quod crediderunt, id esse quod quaerere debuerunt ne ‘quaerite et invenietis’ sine disciplina rationis interpretentur.’ De Praescript. Haer. 9.6; ed. p. 17. Cf. the expression ratio verborum in 9.2.

page 232 note 4 In connexion with the ‘Traditionskette’ retraced to God himself, Bakhuizen van den Brink observes: ‘Gott kann also das Subjekt von tradere sein: das Verbum bedeutet dann offenbaren and das Substantiv traditio: goettliche Offenbarung.’ Art. cit., p. 71. Cf. De Praescript. Haer. 21.4; ed. cit., p. 25 and 37.1; ed. cit., p. 41.

page 233 note 1 New York, 1959.

page 233 note 2 op. cit., p. 36.

page 233 note 3 op. cit., p. 39.

page 233 note 4 op. cit., p. 40.

page 234 note 1 De spirilu sancto 66; P.G. 32.188. Basil's la men … ta de is rendered here as alia … alia.

page 234 note 2 P.L. 161.283; here instead of alia … alia: quasdam … quasdam.

page 234 note 3 C.I.C., Decreti I d. XI, c. V; ed. Friedberg, E., Corpus Juris canonici (Leipzig, 1879), p. 23Google Scholar. Gratian follows Ivo in the use of quasdam … quasdam.

page 234 note 4 ‘Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis et prophetis factae qui canonicos libros scripserunt, non autem revelationi si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta.’ Thomas Aquinas, Sumtna Theologica I, q. 1, art. 8, ad 2.

page 235 note 1 ‘ … deferens ei [Holy Scripture] oilmen auctoritatis.’ De serm. dom. I.ii.32; P.L. 34.1245.

page 235 note 2 ‘… ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas’, Contra ep.fund. 5; C.S.E.L. 25.197, 22.

page 235 note 3 ‘ … credamus divinae auctoritate quam voluit esse in scripturis sanctis de filio suo’, De agone christiano 10.11; C.S.E.L. 41.113, 6.

page 235 note 4 cf. Gerson, , ‘… nulla auctoritas cuiuscunque scripturae aut doctoris habit efficaciam ad aliquid probandam … nisi inquantum doctrinae ecclesiasticae congrueret aut ab ecclesia approbaretur.… Non solum doctrinae doctoris sed etiam ipsi canonice praefert [Augustinus] ecclesiam.’ Opera Omnia, ed. Pin, E. Du (Antwerpiae, 1706), I.463AGoogle Scholar. For a more extensive documentation see my discussion in The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 378–412.

page 235 note 5 d'Ales, Adhemar interprets Augustine's ‘ego vero evangelio non crederem …’ as implying that‘… la foi et la religion pourraient subsister sans 1'Ecriture’, ‘La tradition chrétienne dans l'histoire’, Etudes par des Péres de la Compagnie de Jésus (1907) 44, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 235 note 6 ‘ … non tamen aliquod pnncipium pnmum onus fides causa esset ut evangelio crederetur.’ Prol. I Sent, q I, art 2; fol 3 F; ed. Venice 1522. Compare with this the observation of one of the participants at the Trentine Council, Petrus de Soto: ‘… magis traditione agendum esse quam scriptura, quae traditio in cordibus hominum servatur, quaeve habetur ex ore apostolorum: neque Scripturis crederemus, nisi ecclesiae auctoritas id nobis praeciperet…’ C.T. VIII.743f.

page 236 note 1 ‘Apostoli autem nihil quidem exinde praeceperunt: sed consuetudo ilia … ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est, sicut sunt multa quae universa tenet ecclesia, et ob hoc abapostolis praecepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non reperiantur.’ De Bapt. 22.36; P.L. 43.192.

page 236 note 2 For references see de Vooght, Paul, Les sources de la doctrine chretienne… (Bruges. 1954), pp. 13–32Google Scholar. De Vooght does not indicate that the appeal to the sine scripto traditiones does not merely go back to Abelard (d. 1142), but all theway to Augustine.

page 236 note 3 ‘In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est …’ Commonitorium II.3; ed. by Reginald S. Moxon (Cambridge, England, 1915), p. 10.

page 236 note 4 ‘Hie forsitan requirat aliquis: Cum sit perfectus scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est ut ei ecdesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur auctoritas? Quia videlicet scripturam sanctam pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt, sed eiusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur, ut paene quot homines sunt, tot illinc sententiae erui posse videantur. Aliter namque illam Novatianus …’ Commonitorium II.a; ed.cit., p. 7f.

page 237 note 1 ‘… quisquis ille traditam semel fidem mutare temptaverit, anathema sit.’ Commonitorium VIII.13; ed. cit., p. 33.

page 237 note 2 Notwithstanding Tertullian's defection Vincent calls him ‘apud Latinos nostrorum omnium facile princeps’. Commonitorium XVIII.24; ed. cit., p. 75.

page 237 note 3 ‘ … paucorum temeritati vel inscitiae,’ Commonitorium III.4; ed. cit., p. 12.

page 237 note 4 ‘Tune operam dabit, ut conlatas inter se maiorum consulat interrogetque sententias, eorum dumtaxat, qui diversis licet temporibus et locis, in unius tamen ecclesiae catholicae communione et fide permanentes, magistri probabiles exstiterunt; et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum sed omnes pariter uno eodemque consensu aperte frequenter perseveranter tenuisse scripsisse docuisse cognoverit, sibi quoque intellegat absque ulla dubitatione credendum.’ Commonitorium III.4; ed. cit., p. 13.

page 237 note 5 Commonitorium X. 15 refers to ‘excellentes quaedam personae in ecclesia constitutae res novas catholicis adnuntiare [sinuntur]’; cf. Altaner, Berthold, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1958), 5th edition, p. 418Google Scholar

page 238 note 1 Without any doubt this growth in status has a financial basis. Cf. Gabriel, Astrik L., The College System in the Fourteenth-Century Universities, Baltimore s.a. [1962], p. 3Google Scholar. Gilmore, Myron P. calls attention to the bitter criticism of the canon lawyers — the Bartolist position'—on the part of early humanists, e.g. on the part of Lorenzo Valla in 1433. ‘The Lawyers and the Church in the Italian Renaissance’, The Rice Institute Pamphlet 46 (1960), pp. 136–154; p. I39fGoogle Scholar. An investigation of the relation between the attack on the Basilean position and on the Bartolist position may lead us to the basis of the—temporary—alliance between Humanism and Reformation.

page 238 note 2 Biel, Gabriel, Expositio [1488] (Basel, 1515), Lect. 2BGoogle Scholar; ‘In libro de sancto spiritu, capite XXIX affirmat [Basilius] apostolicum esse etiam non scriptis traditionibus inhaerere…’; Driedo, John, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus libri quatuor (Louvain, 1533), fol. 25gr CGoogle Scholar; see Murphy, John L., The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo (Milwaukee, 1959), p. 60Google Scholar. Cf. my review in Theologische Zeitschrift 17 (1961), pp. 231–4.

page 239 note 1 ‘Si aliqua veritas est catholica aut est dicenda catholica quia a deo revelata, vel quia in scripturis divinis contenta vel quia ab universali ecclesia recepta vel sequitur ex illis vel aliquo illorum quae sunt divinitus revelata et in scripturis divinis inventa et ab ecclesia universali recepta vel quia a summo pontifice approbata.’ Dialogus 1.2.12; ed. Goldast, , Monarchia romani imperil II (Frankfurt, 1614), p. 419.Google Scholar

page 239 note 2 Finkenzeller, Josef regards Duns Scotus as the turning point: ‘Die Tradition als urspruengliche und unabhaengige Quelle der christlichen Lehre ist in der Zeil, in der Skotus die Sentenzen kommentiert, unbekannt.’ ‘In der Betonung der apostolischen Tradition im Sinne einer ueber die HI. Schrift hinausgehenden Ueberlieferung hat unter den Theologen der Hochscholastik Duns Skotus den entscheidenden Durchbruch gewagt …’ Offenbarung und Theologie nach der Lehre des Johannes Duns Skotus, Muenster i.W., 1960, p. 74f.Google Scholar

page 240 note 1 The most recent example is the well-documented essay by MichaelHurley, S.J. Hurley, S.J. ‘Scriptura sola: Wyclif and his Critics’, Traditio 16 (1960), pp. 275–352Google Scholar, who fails to understand Wyclif because he presses Wyclif under the yoke of the either-or of Scripture or Tradition. See esp. op. cit., p. 278f.

page 241 note 1 A few of the most important secondary sources are: Scheel, Otto, Lathers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift (Tuebingen, 1902)Google Scholar; Althaus, Paul, ‘Gehorsam und Freiheit in Luthers Stellung zur Bibel’, in Luther 9 (1927), pp. 74ffGoogle Scholar; Bornkamm, Heinrich, Das Wort Gottes bet Luther (Berlin, 1933)Google Scholar; Reu, J. M., Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, Ohio, 1944)Google Scholar; Bring, Ragnar, Luthers Anschauung von der Bibel (Berlin, 1951)Google Scholar; Prenter, Regin, Spiritus Creator (Munich, 1954)Google Scholar; Nielsen, H. Oestergaard-, Scriptura sacra et viva vox: Eine Lutherstudie (Berlin, 1957).Google Scholar

page 242 note 1 van den Brink, J. N. Bakhuizen has noted—and criticised—that the editors of the Konkordienbuch (Goettingen, 1930)Google Scholar, refer in the index from ‘Tradition’ to ‘Menschensatzungen’. ‘La tradition dans l'Eglise primitive et au XVIe siécle’, in Reuut d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses 36 (1956), pp. 271–81; p. 272f. Cf. the same in The Book of Concord (Phila., 1959), sub voce. When one checks the references appears that not ‘tradition’ but ‘traditions’ are meant, which are identified with ‘observances’: ‘We gladly keep the old traditions set up in the Church because they are useful and promote tranquillity, and we interpret them in an evangelical way [by] excluding the opinion that holds that they justify.’ Apology of the Augsburg Confession, art. XV; ed. cit., p. 220. As proved to be the case with Gabriel Biel, these traditions are understood to be rites and observances. They are rejected as the work of ‘summists and canonists’, who neglected ‘more important things such as faith, consolation in severe trials, and the like’. Augsburg Confession, XXVI; ed. cit., p. 66. These statements do not refer to what we termed Tradition I. Mueller's, J.T.Die symbolischen Butcher der evangelische-lutherischen Kirche (Stuttgart, 1860), p. 971Google Scholar, accurately refers to ‘traditiones’. Cf. for the same use The Little Catechism, of 1556 ‘approved by … John Calvin’, answer 4 in The School of Faith, ed. T. F. Torrance (New York, 1959), p. 239. This plural ‘traditiones’ cannot surprise us in view of the fact that—except at two places in the Acta–this was the disputed term at the Council of Trent.

page 242 note 2 Evangelium von den zehn Aussaetzigen, 1521; W.A. 8, 341.

page 242 note 3 It is Tavard's contention that Luther replaced the authority of the Church with an arbitrary principle of his own liking. He would even boast in ‘my own doctrine’ as Tavard repeats five times. Op. cit., pp. 81–96. Joseph Lortz defines Luther's position as ‘ein starker Dogmatismus im Subjektivismus, ein subjektiver Dogmatismus’; Die Reformation in Deutschland (Freiburg, 19412), I, p. 401. Albert Ebneter mentions the first passages where Luther comments on Augustine's ‘Ego non crederem …’: W.A. 2.430; 2.429–432; 2.288; cf. 2.263. ‘Luther und das Konzu’, Zeitschrift fuer Katholische Theologie 84 (1962), pp. 1–48Google Scholar; p. 19, note 122. Tavard's conclusion should be compared with the statement: ‘Das Urteil ueber, die Wahrheit steht bei den Theologen, die in der Schrift ihr Fundament haben’ ibid., p. 13.

page 243 note 1 Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum (Leipzig, igoyff), IV.818; quoted by Maier, Paul L., Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and the Work of Christ (Assen, 1959), p. 29.Google Scholar

page 243 note 2 1527. W.A. 24.233.

page 243 note 3 1529. Large Catechism, II.3. Book of Concord, ed. Tappert, Th. G. (Philadelphia 1959), p. 416Google Scholar. One wonders how Tavard could feel that it is typical only for Calvinism that ‘in an inseparable diptych the Word guarantees the Spirit, and the Spirit is the criterion of the Word’, Op. cit., p. 99.

page 243 note 4 W.A. 26.I46f.

page 244 note 1 Cap. I. I; in Mueller, E. F. K., Die Bekenntnisschriflen der reformitrten Kirche (Leipzig, 1903), p. 171Google Scholar. For the understanding of tradition in the sixteenth century see van den Brink, J. N. Bakhuizen, Traditio in de Reformatie en het Katholicisme in de zestiende eeuw (Amsterdam, 1952)Google Scholar. For Melanchthon see the very important dissertation by Fraenkel, Peter, Testimonia patrum. The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Genéve, 1961)Google Scholar. For Chemnitz and early Lutheranism see Pelikan, Jaroslav, ‘Die Tradition im konfessionellen Luthertum’, Lutherische Rundschau 6 (1956–1957), pp. 228ffGoogle Scholar; Lutheran World 3 (1956), pp. 214–22. See my ‘Reformation, Preaching and Ex Opere Operato’, Christianity Divided: Protestant and Roman Catholic Theological Issues (New York, 1961), pp. 223–41.

page 244 note 2 The Reformation position is most succinctly stated by the reformed theologian, Wollebius, Johannes: ‘Testimonium hoc duplex est, principale et ministeriale. Principale est testimonium spiritus sancti,—ministeriale vero testimonium est testimonium ecclesiae.’ Christianae theologiae compendium, Basiliae 1626, p. 3Google Scholar; quoted by Heinrich Heppe (—Ernst Bizer), Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche (Neukirchen, 19582), p. 23.

page 244 note 3 ‘Das Konzil von Trient ueber das Verhaeltnis der Heiligen Schrift und der nicht geschriebenen Traditionen’, in Die muendliche Ueberlieferung (Muenchen, 1957), pp. 125–206Google Scholar; esp. pp. 148fF. For a more detailed presentation of the ‘Roman View’, cf. J. K. S. Reid, The Authority of Scripture (New York, no year), pp. 121–44. Mr Reid omits, however, a discussion of the position of the ‘new-theology’ group.

page 245 note 1 op. cit., p. 244.

page 245 note 2 op. cit., p. 208.

page 245 note 3 cf. Lennertz, H., ‘Scriptura sola‘, in Gregorianum 40 (1959), pp. 38–53Google Scholar; ‘Sine scripto traditiones’, ibid., pp. 624–35; Beumer, Johannes, ‘Die Frage nach Schrift und Tradition bei Robert Bellarmin’, in Scholastik 34 (1959), pp. 1–22Google Scholar; esp. important excursus on pp. 20ff. Spindeler, Alois, ‘Pari pietatis affectu. Das Tndentinum ueber Heilige Schrift und apostolische Ueberlieferungen’, Theologie und Glaube 51 (1961), pp. 161–180Google Scholar. See also Jedin, Hubert, a scholar who is without doubt the greatest living authority on the Council of Trent: ‘Es kann nicht zweifelhaft sein, dass die Mehrzahl der in Trient anwesenden Theologen wenn nicht den Ausdruck partim-partim, so doch die Sache billigten, naemlich dass die dogmatische Tradition eintn die Schrift ergaenzenden Offenbarungsstrom beinhalte.‘ Geschichte des Konzils von Trient. II (Freiburg, 1957), p. 61.Google Scholar

page 245 note 4 See Herder Korrespondenz 8 (1959), p. 351: ‘… nach den Prinzipien katholischer Theologie und Kanonistik [wuerde] derjenigen Auffassung der Vorzug zu geben sein, die weniger in das Trienter Glaubensgesetz hineinlegt, und das ist die von Geiselmann.’ Cf. Peter Lengsfeld, op. cit., p. 126, who tries to reconcile the points of view of Geiselmann, Lennertz and Beumer. See, however, Lennertz, , ‘Scnptura et traditio in decreto 4. sessionis Concilii Tridentini’, Gregorianum 42 (1961), pp. 517–522Google Scholar. On grounds of the continued debate regarding the choice between ‘simili’ and ‘pari’ as adjectives for ‘affectu’, Lennertz concludes:‘… manifestat Concilium mentem suam non mutavisse.’ Art. cit., p. 521. Critical of Lennertz and favouring Geiselmann is Rahner, Karl, Ueber Schriflinspiration (Freiburg, 1959), pp. 42ff; pp. 80ff.Google Scholar

page 245 note 5 op. cit., p. 148; p. 177.

page 246 note 1 Changes have been made, ‘non tamen in substantia’, C.T. V.76.

page 246 note 2 C. T. I.535; C. T. I.494. Cf. Alois Spindeler, ‘Pari pietatis affectu…’, p. 171 f.

page 246 note 3 ‘Omnis autem doctrinae ratio, quae fidelibus tradenda sit, verbo Dei continetur, quod in scripturam, traditionesque distributum est.’ Praefatio, Sectio 12, p. 7f; Catechismus Romanus ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini iussu S. Pii V Pontifici Maximi editus (Romae, 1796)Google Scholar. This partim-partim is of course compatible with et whenever one speaks about Scripture and Tradition as two sources of proof and confirmation. ‘Ac de huius quidem doctrinae veritate [ignis purgatorius], quam et Scripturarum testimoniis, et Apostolica traditione confirmatam esse sancta Concilia declarant. …’ De quinto articulo, Caput VI.3, p. 59: cf. De Ordinis Sacramento, Caput VII.29, p. 325.

page 247 note 1 ‘ … totum in sacra scriptura et iterum totum in sine scripto traditionibus … ’, Geiselmann, op. cit., p. 206.

page 247 note 2 For the post-Tridentine period see: J. R. Geiselmann, op. cit., III. ‘Die Ueberwindung des Missverstaendnisses der nachtridentinischen Kontrovers-Theologie’, pp. 178–206; Die lebendige Ueberlieferung als Norm des christlichen Glaubens dargestellt im Geiste der Traditionslehre Johannes Ev. Kuhns (Freiburg, 1959); Congar, Ives M.-J., O.P., , La Tradition et les Traditions (Paris, 1960), pp. 233–263Google Scholar. Holstein, Henri, La Tradition dans I'Eglise (Paris, 1960), pp. 103–140.Google Scholar

page 247 note 3 Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensaetze der Katholiken und Protestanten (Koeln, 1958 2), Par. 38–42; pp. 412–448.Google Scholar

page 247 note 4 ‘Hiernach lautet der Grundsatz der Katholiken: Du wirst dich der vollen und ungeteilten christlichen Religion nur in Verbindung mit ihrer wesentlichen Form, welche da ist die Kirche, bemaechtigen’, Par. 39, p. 426.

page 247 note 5 Denz., 1787.

page 248 note 1 Congar, op. cit., p. 251; Franzelin's work has ‘largement déterminé la théologie moderne’, ibid., cf. Holstein, op. cit., pp. 125ff.

page 248 note 2 ‘regula proxima veritatis’, Acta apostolicae sedis 42 (1950), p. 567.Google Scholar

page 249 note 1 Karl Barth, K.D. I.2.532; recently Ebeling, Gerhard, Die Geschkhtlichkeit der Kirche und ihrer Verkuendigung als theologisches Problem (Tuebingen, 1954), p. 51.Google Scholar

page 250 note 1 Die Tradition ah exigetisches und historisches und theologisches Problem, (Zuerich, 1954), p. 45Google Scholar. Cf. his The Early Church (London, 1956), pp. 87–98.

page 250 note 2 Tavard, op. cit., p. 85. ‘… eine Grenze, die innerhalb eines Rahmens verschiebbar ist, bleibt auch dann nur eine verschiebbare Grenze; und mit ihrer normativen Kraft ist es aus.’ Peter Lengsfeld, Ueberlieferung …, p. 94.

page 250 note 3 Damien van den Eynde, op. cit., p. 187.

page 251 note 1 Sartory, Th. A., Bcncdiklinische Monatsschrifi 1950, p. 276, note 17Google Scholar; quoted by Grass, Hans, ‘Die katholische Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift und der Tradition’, Quellen zur Konfessionskunde, AI (Lueneburg, 1954), p. 63, note 29.Google Scholar

page 251 note 2 A.A.S. 42.568.

page 252 note 1 ‘… sie [die Tradition] kann und soil ebensowenig wie die Heilige Schrift eine materiell adequate Quelle und eine formell vollkommene Regel des Glaubens sein.’ Handbuch der kathmischen Theologie. I. Theologische Erkemlnislehre (Freiburg, 1959), 3 ed., n. 353, p. 171Google Scholar. ‘In der Tat enthaelt die Schrift die nuisten und wichtigsten Lehren der Tradition … in der Schrift [sind] alle Gebiete der ofFenbarten Wahrheiten wenigstens beruehrt, und weitaus die meisten einzelnen Wahrheiten virtuell ausgesprochen oder doch angedeutet so dass es keine offenbarte Wahrheit gibt, die nicht analytisch oder synthetisch als naehere Bestimmung oder Entwicklung der in der Schrift enthaltenen Wahrheiten sich darstellte und in dieser cinen Anknuepfungspunkt finden koennte.’ ibid., n. 298, p. 149. Peter Lengs-feld';s study on tradition is an example of this new apologetic task of the doctor which should not be confused with historical inquiry. Omitting sections of the above quotations, he claims that Scheeben belongs to those who hold ‘das Enthaltensein aller Heilswahrheiten in der Schrift’, op. cit., p. 122, n. 140.

page 252 note 2 ‘Totum depositum fidei … et custodiendum et tuendum et interpretandum concrederit [Magisterio]’ A.A.S. 42 (1950), p. 567.Google Scholar

page 253 note 1 Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus. Nov. 1, 1950, A.A.S. 4a (1950), P. 757.

page 253 note 2 cf. Barth, K.D. I.2.651.

page 254 note 1 ‘The Catholic Concept of Tradition in the Light of Modern Theological Thought’, Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America (Washington, 1951), p. 74.Google Scholar

page 254 note 2 The Early Church … p. 98.

page 255 note 1 Heiler, Friedrich, Der Katholizismus, seine Idee und seine Erscheinung, 2 edition (Muenchen, 1923), p. 334.Google Scholar