Coming back to "hermeneutics," let's re-consider this:
D. For Paul and Augustine, Scripture, tradition, and reason speak uniformly.
I assume that what was meant to be said was that they all speak univocally, with one voice. For an Anglican, then, the case is mostly closed. All burden for the contrary rests exclusively with those promoting novelties.
Where, however, such univocity is lacking, then the order is: “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth.”
Our church teaches: (XXXII) Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's laws either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness. But by what right?
First, Scripture. The priests of the Jews were allowed to marry and nothing in the New Testament suggests otherwise (although, celibacy for all who can bear it is perforce also highly commended):
Now, the questions arise: What are the further constraints? May a man in holy orders who is unmarried contract a wife? If his wife dies, may he remarry? If he may remarry, ought he?
Here Scripture has no definitive answer. And so we must apply Reason. If that prove sufficient, then tradition need not be invoked (although it may be well to consider it). I think that given what we know today, Reason would suggest great discretion in such cases: while a man might licitly contract marriage, there are some very strong grounds militating against such.
Therefore, given that these three things are not on the same level, this sort of complaint really has little traction:
While this Tradition may require our respect, it need not command our compliance because, in this case, Scripture and Reason suffice.
But what if Scripture and Reason can only take us so far? Then Tradition is required to go farther. And so we may, with the King, licitly say:
Whatever they agreed upon but that was not to be believed as necessary to salvation -- their physics, say -- I need have no concurrence with.
None of this works like a sausage grinder. But that is no reason for outright contempt of the Consensus Quinquesaecularis. Nor have we found grounds to conclude that, for all the fanfare, this is, in reality, nothing but sola scriptura in disguise.
It is easy to magnify the appearance of diversity in "traditions." But compared with us, there is much greater agreement than many may wish.
No comments:
Post a Comment