The Voice of the Church and Infallible Tradition

 In the last post on the voice of the Church, we went over the fact that the Church has a voice/mind/mouth, and the fact that this voice is clear, at least enough to be recognized, in ecumenical councils and the universal opinion of teachers of the Faith. This time, I'd like us to take a look at the notion of infallible tradition broadly and how the voice of the Church plays into it. 

Before we consider infallible tradition, though, it would be wise to consider tradition broadly. The Latin noun "trāditiō" comes from the verb "trādere," literally meaning to hand over. Tradition can be considered, therefore, anything which is handed over from one generation to the next. In the context of the Christian religion, there are various kinds of tradition. For example, a local church might have a tradition of singing certain hymns on particular Sundays. We are not considering this kind of local and unofficial tradition. Here, we will investigate infallible traditions, or those which form the life of the whole Church in her practice and belief, in virtue of the fact that they come from an infallible source. 

We may first divide infallible tradition up into three categories by source: dominical, apostolical, and ecclesiastical. The first kind of tradition comes directly from the Lord, the second from the Apostles, and the third from the Church. When we recall that the Faith is "once delivered to the saints," and therefore cannot be added to in subsequent generations after the time of the Apostles, it becomes evident that everything which is a matter of faith originates either from the teachings of our Lord or the Apostles. The Church may infallibly define theses which are necessary to guard matters of faith, but do not create new matters of faith with her ecclesiastical tradition. 

Second, we may view infallible tradition from the perspective of the medium, or the manner in which tradition is communicated. When we do so, two categories appear, namely, Sacred Scripture and the Church. In the latter category, we may subdivide into all of the various locations of the voice of the Church: the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the unanimous consent of the Saints, the unanimous consent of the College of Bishops, the dogmatic judgments of the ecumenical councils, and the dogmatic judgments of the Pope. In the last post, we pulled the first three into one general thesis of "the infallibility of the teachers of the Church altogether agreeing," and the fourth one into a thesis of its own.

So, infallible tradition is a body of propositions, some from the Lord directly, some from His Apostles, and some from His Church. This kind of tradition is called 'infallible' because we know it comes from an infallible source, either by the word of God in the Scriptures or the voice of the Church. Let's introduce another distinction into that equation! The Fathers often speak of both the firm practice of the Church as well as the steadfast belief of the Church as tradition. 

As to the belief of the Church as tradition, we may cite a few witnesses:

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more." (Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27)

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.' From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 4)

"However, none of the sacred words need an allegorical interpretation of their meaning; they need examination, and the perception to understand the force of each proposition. But tradition must be used too, for not everything is available from the sacred scripture. Thus the holy apostles handed some things down in scriptures but some in traditions, as St. Paul says, “As I delivered the tradition to you,” and elsewhere, “So I teach, and so I have delivered the tradition in the churches,” and, “If ye keep the tradition in memory, unless ye have believed in vain.” God’s holy apostles, then, gave God’s holy Church the tradition that it is sinful to change one’s mind and marry after vowing virginity. And yet the apostle wrote, “If the virgin marry she hath not sinned.” How can the one agree with the other? By that virgin he does not mean the one who had made a vow to God, but the one on whom virginity has been forced by the scarcity, at that particular time, of men who believe in Christ." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Heresy 61, Chapter 6)

And on the practice of the Church as tradition:

"Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolic tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors) — this most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus. But, according to the teaching which springs from a more careful investigation into the truth, which, after great doubt and fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a plenary Council, we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus." (Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 7)

"But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting. And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable "with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation," as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose. And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants," etc. (ibid., Book IV, Chapters 23 and 24)

"And certain other heretics, contentious by nature, and wholly uniformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more than usually quarrelsome, combine in maintaining that Easter should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day it should occur. But in this, they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not so keep the commandment as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this fact, that the legal enactment was made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover. And this (paschal sacrifice, in its efficacy,) has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter. They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: 'For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.' In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles." (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VIII, Chapter 11)

"Luciferian: Thirsty men in their dreams eagerly gulp down the water of the stream, and the more they drink the thirstier they are. In the same way you appear to me to have searched everywhere for arguments against the point I raised, and yet to be as far as ever from being satisfied. Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.
Orthodoxus: I do not deny that it is the practice of the Churches in the case of those who living far from the greater towns have been baptized by presbyters and deacons, for the bishop to visit them, and by the laying on of hands to invoke the Holy Ghost upon them. But how shall I describe your habit of applying the laws of the Church to heretics, and of exposing the virgin entrusted to you in the brothels of harlots? If a bishop lays his hands on men he lays them on those who have been baptized in the right faith, and who have believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three persons, but one essence." (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, Chapters 8 and 9)

"It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this David also said what we recorded above, 'in sins my mother conceived me.' For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen, Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter 9)

"At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first...Thus, if these things are heard with grace and correct faith, they bestow edification on the Church and eternal life on the believers. I counsel that these things be observed by all with good understanding. For if all who hear the apostolic tradition follow and keep it, no heretic will be able to introduce error, nor will any other person at all." (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, Chapters 21 and 43)

Now, this distinction between the belief and practice of the Church creates a small problem. We can easily categorize the belief of the Church in one of our criteria for infallible tradition (the unanimous opinion of the teachers of the Church, the ecumenical councils, etc.), but how can we understand what the practice of the Church is? On this matter, we must follow the way Augustine reasons in his 166th epistle: "let no man believe anything which runs counter to the firmly grounded practice of the Church." The practice of the Church, such as the baptism of infants with the consent of their guardian, has a dogmatic principle behind it, such as that the consent of a guardian suffices for the consent of those who do not have the use of reason, or that individuals need not profess the Faith in all circumstances before being baptized. These conclusions, as matters of faith, underlie the practices of the Church. They are the objects of infallibility for infallible disciplines in the Church, universally recognized and performed. Many of the universal practices themselves, such as the tasting of milk and honey after baptism, acquire the force of law in the Church and may rightly be considered ecclesiastical rules, but are not part of our consideration of infallible tradition because there is no underlying belief present in them except things which are obvious (e.g. that it is licit to eat honey). 

As a little note to end on, I believe that the aforementioned distinctions can enrich our understanding of the dialogue on the relationship between Sacred Scripture and tradition. Infallible tradition, properly speaking, is simply a body of practices and beliefs. This kind of tradition isn't able to show itself to be infallible. Therefore, when we consider the authority of extra-biblical traditions, we should look first and foremost at the authority of the voice of the Church, not at a vague notion beliefs which have been passed down from generation to generation. When we see this, the debate over the Bible and infallible tradition becomes much clearer. That debate is actually over the voice of the Church (and thus the infallible criteria of this tradition) rather than tradition or oral preaching as general concepts.