Here is his video. Below it are my comments, which, apart from one place, I have tried to make it so they follow each other in nearly continuous text. They are still different under his video, and I have been offered dialogue under one of them.
I Was WRONG about Tradition (and you might be too)
Gospel Simplicity | 27 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=praQYI1UgUM
It is highly certain that the Apostles had from Christ a complete Christological, Typological exegesis of the Old Testament. On top of the literal one, where apart from prophecy and chronology we have a tendency to agree with the Jews.
How do I know? Luke 24, the Road to Emmaus.
It is highly certain equally that this is not in its entirety contained in the text of the New Testament. As you noted, it is pretty small.
It is equally certain that it has to be preserved to the end of days.
How do I know? Matthew 28:16 to 20. The content of Jesus' mission is all He had commanded them, the extent of it is to all nations and to the end of time. This is by the way a reason Catholics reject pre-tribulation rapture and pre-wrath rapture. The Church remains on earth to the moment Jesus gets down as warrior and then as judge. So, that moment, perhaps already when He appears in the sky while the Antichrist is still alive and fighting, only then those who are still alive both in body (not yet died) and in spirit (not apostasised) will be raptured, arguably, though not necessarily dying and resurrecting in mid-air during this event.
This means, as we are speaking between the Ascension and the Second Coming, there has to be today a Church that has an integral Typological exegesis of the Old Testament in all its parts, on top of the Bible. I argue, this is the Catholic Church. Some would argue "no, the Orthodox" or the Copts or the Armenians. Or the Assyrians. The Protestants do not argue this even, among themselves. They do not make that claim. And as it comes to OT typological exegesis, what Eliezer was to Abraham, Peter with his successors are to Christ.
The Bible cannot (by itself alone) be the definitive encapsulation of Tradition.
The liturgy dates from the Last Supper and from Pentecost. Acts 2:46,47. Additions to its text content (yes, they exist) have been made in faithful reference to the faith once given. Saying that the liturgy of the whole Church had come to include error is implying Jesus had not kept His promise in Matthew 28:16 to 20.
There is another layer to this. Some Protestants claim, I have read this in a Protestant with a Polish (?) last name, and I have heard it pretty much repeated from Gavin Ortlund is, Tradition was in the First Century totally reliable, part of it was written down in the NT texts, and since then, other parts have been distorted by "a game of telephone" (which is a great model for how rumour works but a total non sequitur about how tradition works) and therefore all that now remains for certain of that Tradition is in Scripture, same form or other form. Lutherans will usually say the Apostolic Creed is from the Apostles, or were saying it, and they will certainly use it. But each item can be very easily parallelled in Scripture. Items that can not be as securely traced would, on this view, have been lost.
This loss also, as a by-product of distortions, would contradict Matthew 28:16 to 20.
Now, what is the typological sense of Jael and (if you admit the book Judith, by the way you should)?
I don't think a Protestant really has an answer to this. To the Catholic, the answer is obvious from the beginning, the first three words, of
one verse in Deborah's song:
Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.
So, whom did Mary kill?
That's what She must have pondered when the angel greeted Her. By the way, he said the words before Her pregnancy.
Elisabeth adds "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ... whom did Mary and Jesus kill? I think Genesis 3:15 is the sole answer. And as Mary in Herself is not the Redeemer, the only way in which She can truly have been said to have killed Satan is to be first among the redeemed. Given what is Satan's victory, sin, this must have been totally absent from Her.
I take it from tradition that She is utterly sinless, I take it from Jael, Judith, Gabriel and Elisabeth and from God in Eden that She crushed the Head of Satan, not by the Incarnation, but before it.
The Protestant rejects the Tradition, and he lacks, contrary to Luke 24:27 a typological reading of Jael. Remember, not just a few key points of the OT, but all of it involves things about Christ (and about His Mother, and about His Church and ...).
Sure, if he said "we could reconstruct the missing parts from what remains in Scripture" he would be on to something. If he faithfully did that, he would find Catholic Tradition time after time (as I've examplified with Mary) match the most probable original content of that unwritten "lost" tradition, and finally conclude it wasn't missing after all. But alas he is more likely to say "we just can't tell this side of eternity" ... which is wrong.
[He transitions to things in Congar that he or I don't agree with]
Congar's distinction between "Tradition" (capital T, like the Bible) and "traditions" (not necessarily binding), does he place "sign of the Cross" in the latter category?
Because, most Catholics would actually say that sign of the Cross like worship on Sundays belongs to Apostolic tradition. I e it is a Monument of Tradition.
That we don't find it mentioned in the NT texts directly is a red herring for the Protestants who say it came later. To a Catholic this is simply the case because the NT itself was not the liturgical handbook (other than for readings) of the original Church.
- Dyzma Damachus
- @dyzmadamachus9842
- I'd say the sign of the cross is a t tradition. Most customs are. You can do it, but you don't have to. Though I'm open to hear an opposing argument on this.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @dyzmadamachus9842 All Churches with Apostolic Succession do it and teach it is obligatory.
I think also all would point to "take up his Cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24) and say the Apostles (or Christ Himself) made the sign a reminder of the duty to deny oneself. It would still be an oral tradition, since the words as such don't strictly imply it.
I don't know what you mean by something just being vaguely passed down.
I don't know how that would function.
We all learn the alphabet by oral tradition. A teacher (someone at home or a teacher in school) writes a letter, and orally pronounces it. When a child first sees the shape of A, he does not know it is associated with the sound of AH or UH or in English even A of Bat or EY of Late. He must learn this from the parent or school teacher, and he cannot learn it by reading, since that's what he's just starting to be taught, not a thing he already knows. Every child knows the alphabet (if at all) by oral tradition.
I absolutely do not see how this could degenerate into a game of telephone.
And when it comes to the subject of tradition, as in the bishops, whom Congar mentions, the instructions on getting them in the Bible go like this:
Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime
[1 Timothy 3:9-10]
In other words, very unlike the game of telephone, St. Paul makes sure that the subject of tradition as active subject is first well instructed himself before he starts passing on the instructions to the next generation of faithful. So, what's your scenario for how something gets "just vaguely passed down"? I don't know any.
Some among Creationists would see Pagan version of the Flood story as a school example of an inexact passing down, a distortion as a simple function of time or generation shifts. I'd disagree. The distortion certainly is there, but I'd say it is often deliberate. Babylonian theology makes a distinction between a god of Justice and Order, Enlil, and a Trickster god who is Friend of Mankind, Enki. The hugest distortion in the Babylonian Flood narrative would be saying "Enlil was angry, so Enki warned Utnapishtim" ... it's a theological shift amounting to Apostasy, and has nothing to do with game of telephone. Smaller shifts are things like attaching the participants to specific dynasties of Babylonian royalty (or reducing a pre-Flood lineage, real or merging Cainite with Sethite, to Babylonian royalty) as ruler of Shuruppak, or limiting the geographic scope to Mesopotamia in order to give an impression (reminiscent of Chinese maps of the pre-colonial times) that Mesopotamia is the centre of the world, there is Mesopotamia, and then marginal localities. Only a little would be due to "bad memory and free reinsertion" ... like the shape of the Ark replaced by a giant version of a Mesopotamian coracle.
Some would say the Greeks show it could be done, by their belief in Hercules. The correct view is, he really existed, he really was extraordinarily strong, he really killed monsters (or at a minimum was in his lifetime reported to have done so, whatever he may have really been doing), he dominated Iolaus and Hylas in unhealthy ways, he was struck with madness and killed his first wife ... and he was misunderstood as sth like "son of Zeus" already in his own lifetime. Probably contributed to it by being a braggart and physically intimidating. If we have good reasons to doubt Zeus was even worshipped in Mycenaean times, as he lived while Troy was still standing, the hero worship of Hercules was translated to fit the new false theology as it replaced the old one. Again, the distortions come from a false theology, one already Apostatic from the original worship of God even before Hercules lived, and are not simply a function of the passing of time.
We would on the contrary argue that Genesis 1 to 11 (if Genesis 1 was revealed to Adam in integrity) or Genesis 2 to 11, with some words put back into Genesis 1 (if it was revealed to Moses) are a school example of very exact transmission under oral conditions. There are two good mnemonic tricks to faithfully transmit an oral text, one of them is verse (and the Iliad was preserved between Homer and the sons of Peisistratus this way) and the other is briefness, and all the other chapters of Genesis (after or from 12) are more prolix, as if someone was using writing and stocking written accounts in the baggage of the caravan or possessions of the Beduin tribe. But the stories in the chapters 2 to 11 at least are very brief calculated for memorisation.
If you have learned the Apostolic Creed by heart and kept it alive by reciting it daily, you know this is possible. And under such conditions, why would the Tradition have suffered distortion, other than locally?
"Is it apostolic or is it not"
That's like looking at the sky, seeing Sun and Moon pass from East to West, seeing stars do the same, and asking "is it heaven turning, or is it earth turning, for that we need a proof" ... the appearance
is proof presumptive as long as there is no proof to the contrary (which, by the way, there isn't).
Similarily a tradition of the Church is proof presumptive, as long as there is no proof to the contrary. Now, if a tradition were purely local, and found itself rejected from other places, that would for instance be proof to the contrary. Or if a tradition (lower case) were clearly shown to contradict Scripture, similarily. But it could only be shown to contradict Scripture as Scripture is read universally through the Church. An ad hoc reading of Scriture verses just to contradict a tradition is out of court.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:
Hebrews 9:27
This universally means, whether someone goes to Heaven or to Hell is decided after death. Pretty immediately. It doesn't mean everyone who gets to Heaven gets there immediately. It is therefore not a prooftext against Purgatory. It becomes even ludicrous when some Protestants then teach soul sleep, as if the general judgement at the end of time were the first judgment, and not a second confirmation of it, with resurrected body and public knowledge for all of the fate added, and then they still rely on people who considered Hebrews 9:27 to disprove Purgatory. Some Orthos would also teach soul sleep, but they would definitely be praying for their dead.
So, the Protestants who took this to dismiss Purgatory were misusing Scripture. It's a good proof for tradition, in the hand of one who knows it, but it's not a good arbiter of tradition in a man who mistakenly takes upon himself to sift in Tradition, for no purpose other than a mistaken notion of what it is or how it relates to Christ's promise.
"firm standard"
Have you heard of case law?
Sure, it has been heavily abused about the Establishment Clause, as Scholastic Answers mentioned recently, but it is a thing.
St. Thomas referred to the lives of the saints as case law. It was a thing in Medieval Europe too.
For instance, St. Barbara is case law about things like obedience to one's father and St. Lucy on obedience to the prince and both about "be fruitful and multiply" ... each of which is not unlimited, as we see by this case law. By the way, the Tradition that these are saints is not strictly speaking Apostolic Tradition, since they lived and were martyred after the Apostles died. However it is definitely application of Apostolic Tradition for instance judging from "greater love hath no man" or from the miraculous powers of relics (Acts of Apostles 19:12, 4 Kings 13:21).
Case law is a firm standard by which you judge applications and interpretations of the law. (Apart from abuses, as mentioned). There are other things about the law that are not in the text itself but nevertheless are essential to its correct interpretation. For instance, we deal with cases according to current legal practise. There may sometimes be a reason to deviate from it or change it, but usually a wooden literal reading of the law text is not a reason to deviate from current legal practise. St. Thomas applies this to Apostolic era rules about abstaining from blood food and head covering for women in Church: he says, they still oblige to this day where this has remained the legal practise, but they are not sinful to omit where this is not the case.
Obviously, legal practise is a thing where corruptions can creep in, due to undue pragmatism. For instance, it's pretty obvious why going on a Crusade or physically with hands or giving of building stones helping to construct a Church should gain an indulgence. At a certain time which you may be familiar with, this could be replaced by giving money to an authorised official of the Church, one of those bearing the name Tetzel. The Council of Trent changed this legal practise of replacing certain acts with money gifts.
"not evident it is the Roman Catholic Church"
Fair enough as far as the concept of Tradition is concerned. But it is still evident it is not any Protestant denomination. When we look at the rest, Catholics, Orthodox, those rejecting Chalcedon (two groups at least, maybe a third), those rejecting Ephesus, it's not like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Between these, one can prudentially adjudicate based on other matters, in order to find which one. As a revert from Orthodoxy, I know for a fact that filioque was taught in equipollent words by St. Athanasius and in the exact word by the First Council of Toledo, which issued an anti-Priscillianist explanation of the faith. I also know Caerularius pretended Jesus had not ritually conducted a Seder, which I find an unbelievable statement, and badly argued. It is their case for
rejecting unleavened bread.
1) In Caerularius' time, the phrase "artos azymos" had been shortened to "azymos" and he argued from the Gospel text saying "artos" ... which in his Greek, but certainly not that of the Gospeller, was a different thing from "azymos"
2) He argued that Jesus had been celebrating the Last Supper before the Seder of the other Jews and would have broken the law if He had actually made a Seder one evening too early. Well, supposing this were true, which some have shown clear other possibilities about, there are at least two scenarios in which it would be possible for Jesus to have done this lawfully. a) He could have started Nisan by observing the new moon one evening earlier, for geographic reasons, if he was at Caesarea Maritima or for reason of negligent observations at the Temple, and He could have not been informed by emissaries from the Temple avoiding to talk to Him; b) He could have got a special permission from Kaiaphas, and since the OT was still ongoing, Kaiaphas had this authority of dispensation. If Jesus had obeyed Kaiaphas at this occasion, He would have been keeping the law, even if not in the exact same way. And Kaiaphas could have given the permission as an act of humanity while knowing He would have to get Jesus killed on the Parascheve before the Pesakh started.
"irreformably"
Then you contradict and undermine Scripture.
1) You contradict Scripture when you say the magisterium cannot adjudicate irreformably, since Jesus says the opposite to Peter (Matthew 16) and to the Twelve in general (Matthew 18).
2) You undermine Scripture, because the fixedness of the canon depends on the Church having this power.
By the way, if you want to argue that the Church has Scripture before 382 AD, I would say that the first infallible decisions applied to each book. St. Peter was aware of and probably author of a canon list for the Pauline letters. Since these decisions partly came to be forgotten, the further infallible decisions 382 to 401 were harmonising ecclesial traditions about the Apostolic magisterium. You say it was not infallible? Unfortunately, the epistle of Peter mentions a canon list of Pauline letters, but doesn't give it. If Damasus I or the bishops around the world coming to accept the decisions from 382 to 401 were not infallible, what Pauline Epistle do you want to get rid of? The Pastorals? Liberal theologians within Protestantism could tell you "been there, done that" ... unlike Bart Ehrman repeating them, they were considered as Christians in 19th C. Germany or current Scandinavia (or at least Scandinavia a few decades ago).
"but equally so there's a reason why these debates haven't been settled even 500 years after the Reformation"
If you take the Reformation as good, you will consider the reason as the Church (in which you include Protestant denominations) not having infallible authority.
If you take the Reformation as bad, which I do, you will consider the reason as Protestant denominations not being the Church in the first place and
therefore not having infallible authority.
As to debate between Protestants and Catholics, the Church and its rival(s) exist as population, all of which are not debating. A population that is wrong will continue to be wrong by ignoring the debates or ignoring the best parts of it. That's how Samarian populations remained disunited to Old Testament Judaism. Jesus tells the woman that the Jews were in the right. I e, those known back then as Jews. This is typically, but not always the case. We have a prophecy of Jewish conversion in the End Times. Individuals do engage in debates, and some switch sides due to that.
I would finally say, the place where Congar goes wrong is, he says the echo of the ecclesia docta (the Church as being taught, which includes both simple priests, who are not bishops, and laymen) comes back in a non-identical form.
When it comes to purely verbal expression, sure. Someone may come up with a catchier phrase and it gets adopted. The point is, in the light of Matthew 28:16 to 20 this can only happen all over the Church and for a time sufficient to quench memory of opposing views, if it is in substance part of what was revealed. It may bring out an implication where the Scripture and Apostolic Tradition only gave premisses, but it cannot be alien to it.
But when it comes to substance, this will not happen. Arguably Congar will nominally agree with this point. But the words he used and his insistance on distinguishing Capital T Tradition from lower case t traditions, he has paved the way for abuses like pretending that Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism, very clearly ecclesial traditions of exegesis and also philosophy, do not belong to Capital T Tradition, they were just lower case t traditions, and the magisterium is free to change them. Not so.
Trent Session IV gives a safeguard against this. The individual conscience is certainly bound to what the Church "hath held and now holdeth" ... but not to what the Church "now holdeth" and "hath recently discovered" / "hath not held before" ... This is a safeguard against obedience to the Reformers, very undue, but also against obedience to Ratzinger and similar.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Peter Nolascus
28.I.2025
Sancti Petri Nolasci Confessoris, qui Ordinis beatae Mariae de Mercede redemptionis captivorum exstitit Fundator, et octavo Kalendas Januarii obdormivit in Domino.
