An interesting point on Genesis 1, Leviticus 11, and Acts 10

In an essay translated in part by Sandro Magister, Jean-Pierre Sonnet points out the apparent contradiction between Genesis One’s “God saw that it was good” and Leviticus 11’s division of foods into “clean and unclean”. He writes that

The differences introduced in Leviticus 11 apply only to the people that has been “distinguished” [ie. the Jews].

This seems then to give us the explanation for Acts 10, Peter’s dream. At precisely the point that God wishes to show that the notion of the “people of God” is to be expanded to include all nations universally, he once again declares that all food is “clean”:

“What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”

More on Sola Scriptura in Lutheranism

At the end of a long string of comments on the posting regarding sola scriptura, Pastor Weedon provides a good precis of the teaching of the early Lutheran Church on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and quotes Luther as saying (regarding infant baptism as an example)

“I did not invent it. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong.”

. He also says, regarding my assertion that his position regarding Scripture and Tradition (Tradition teaches sola scriptura) is contradictory:

I do not see a contradiction at all. Sacred Scripture teaches us the value of Tradition (and also teaches us to distinguish between mere human traditions and apostolic ones); Tradition teaches us that the sacred Scriptures are the sole source for the foundations of Christian dogma because our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men, regardless of their sanctity. The Scriptures do not derive their authority from Tradition’s witness about them; they derive their authority from being incontrovertibly the Word of God.

Pastor, you say you cannot see the contradiction. Let me lay it out once more for you.

I agree that Scripture is (to the faithful) “incontrovertibly” the Word of God and that their authority does not derive (as a source) from the Tradition but from God himself. The Church, using Tradition as a guide, recognised their authority and which books were and were not authoritative. Thus again, we see the teaching authority of the Church, which is not above that of God’s Word in Scripture, but in the service of God’s Word in Scripture.

The same could be said of Tradition itself: The Church recognises authentic Tradition on its own self-evident nature as witness to the Word of God. For Catholics, this witness is also “incontrovertible”.

We recongise that just as the authority of the Church and Tradition is not “incontrovertible” to non-Catholics, so the authority of Scripture is not “incontrovertable” to non-Christians.

But you say that “Tradition teaches us that the sacred Scriptures are the sole source for the foundations of Christian dogma becasue our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men.”

Note first: we agree that “our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men.” What we do not agree upon is that this revelation is completely contained in the written revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets. We point to two ways in which the revelation was passed on: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

So where does the “sola” come from? You say it “Tradition teaches” it.

Now, if the Tradition of “sola scriptura” is a “Christian dogma”, then there is a contradiction, for this dogma does not have its foundation in Scripture alone.

Even if it is not a dogma, but a “principle” a difficulty still exists for you: namely that the authority for this principle comes from (one reading of) Tradition. Tradition therefore has a recognised authority as a basis for a theological principle alongside Scripture itself.

The result is that Scripture is no longer the sole authority for the foundation of teaching within the Lutheran Church. Again, a contradiction.

I note in your precis of Lutheran teacing on the perpetual virginity of Mary that Luther said (regarding infant baptism) “I did not invent it. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong.”

That is precisely our point. Luther refers to his own authority as a scriptural interpreter.

How is this any less controversial than our claim that this or that doctrine “came to us from Tradition, and the CHURCH has not been persuaded by any Word of Scripture that it is wrong”?

It is a case of submitting to
1) the Authority of Scripture
2) the Authority of Tradition
3) the Authority of the Church as interpreter of Scripture and Tradition

rather than to
1) the Authority of Scripture
2) the Authority of Tradition
3) my own Authority as interpreter of Scripture and Tradition.

PE has said that the first schema ends in “the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church.”

I contend that the latter schema ends in “Me, me, me.”

Update on the Brazilian abortion case

All readers of this blog will be thankful with the reaction of several curial officials in the Holy See to the way in which the Brazilian abortion case was (mis-)handled. See the full update on Cathnews here. Apparently the original source is in the Italian daily edition L’Osservatore Romano. The following is from report from the International Herald Tribune.

Fisichella stressed that abortion is always “bad.” But he said the quick proclamation of excommunication “unfortunately hurts the credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of many as insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy.”

The Vatican teaches that anyone performing or helping someone to have an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the church, and the Vatican prelate underlined that abortion is “always condemned by moral law as an intrinsically evil act.”

“There wasn’t any need, we contend, for so much urgency and publicity in declaring something that happens automatically,” Fisichella wrote.

Writing as if he were addressing the girl, Fisichella said: “There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust.”

Note two things: first the reference to latae sententiae excommunication. Fisichella seems to be saying that while it is true that such an automatic excommunication comes into play with the act of abortion, nothing publically should have been said about this, and mercy (ie. the lifting of the automatic excommunication) should have been immediately applied to the situation.

Note too that there seems to be some doubt as to whether anything was really actively done as far as the imposition of excommunication goes. Here is something from one of the links given by Cathnews, from the Latin American Herald Tribune:

Brazil’s Catholic bishops conference denied that the archbishop of Recife and Olinda, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated the mother and doctors who practiced a legal abortion on a 9-year-old girl that was pregnant with twins after being raped by her stepfather.

The secretary general of the bishops conference, Dimas Lara Barbosa, said that the prelate “at no time excommunicated anyone.”