I’m taking a theology class called “Sources and Methods” taught by Fr. David Balas, O. Cist., Professor Emeritus and former head of the Theology department at the University of Dallas. I was not thrilled about taking the course, but the current department head, Dr. Lowery, said I should, so I signed up. I had already had Fr. David for a class in Patristics, and I knew he was good, but the name of the course didn’t enthuse me.

Well, it is turning out to be a fascinating course, with very good lecture and reading material. I will try to blog some highlights, not worrying about being comprehensive or composing some kind of treatise at this time because I just don’t have the time. However, it is so good that I feel I should share what I can.

Tradition

Today we started by continuing discussion of Sacred Tradition that began last week. Sacred tradition is that which was received from Christ and the Apostles and preserved in the Church. Various traditions of human origin are not included. Tradition preceeds the New Testament because the teaching of Christ and the Apostles was done orally. Letters were written to deal with certain problems when a personal visit was not possible, so they capture a small portion of Apostolic teaching. The Gospels were written to record the essentials of Christ’s life, but as John says, he did many things which were not written down (Jn 20:30).

Tradition, in the global sense, includes Scripture, because it is the Tradition that produced and passed down the Bible so that we have it today. In another sense, however, Tradition can be thought of as distinct from Scripture, the so called “oral” tradition, which also includes early sacred writings, liturgical customs, and examples of moral living. The Canon of Scripture is a part of Tradition that is not actually contained in Scripture. That is, there is writing in the Bible that says what books should be part of the Bible.

Although Tradition is more comprehensive than Scripture, and is needed to properly interpret Scripture, Sacred Scripture is very important. No doctrine that contradicts Scripture can be accepted. Scripture is the crystalized permanent record of divine revelation that is accepted by all Christians.

Inspiration

God did not use human authors as typewriters or secretaries. Human authorship of Scripture is real, therefore techniques of literary study can and should be employed. However, the “Historical-Critical method” should be used cautiously, and cannot be used in a rationalistic sense that excludes divine intervention. Divine inspiration implies divine intervention.

You cannot say that only the events recorded were inspired or the authors were inspired. You must also say that the text is inspired, meaning that Divine Providence was at work in the production, editing, and transmission of the text.

Inerrancy

Catholic teaching does not maintain that the Bible is perfect in every scientific and historical detail. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Ch. III, #11, says that the books of Scripture teach firmly, faithfully, and without error the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation wished the biblical text to contain.

It appears that God did not see fit to correct limited scientific or historical knowledge of the Biblical authors when they wrote Scripture. Instead, they wrote according to their own human and cultural limits in these areas. A more contemporary example might be if someone said “God created everything from the smallest atom to the largest galaxy.” The point is that God created everything that is, from the smallest to the largest. The fact that modern physics has discovered sub-atomic particles smaller than the smallest atom does not invalidate the statement from a theological point of view.

Interpretation

Scripture can be read and interpretted according to various “senses”. One division is literal versus typical, which sees various Old Testament realities as types or forshadowings of New Testament realities. It is important that such typology be rooted in the actual literal text. That is, the Passover lamb is a type of Christ, but that does not mean that the actual Passover lamb never existed.

Many of the Church Fathers had a four-fold division of senses which carried into the Medieval period and is even in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1. Literal
2. Allegorical - looks at NT realities in OT types
3. Tropological - looks at moral teachings
4. Anagogical - looks at final eschatalogical fulfillment at Christ’s second coming

In an article examining Sen. Joe Biden’s remarks about abortion on Meet the Press, Fr. Thomas Williams says that abortion is the most divisive issue our country has faced next to slavery. He then goes with a comparison of the arguments used by pro-abortionists to those that were used in defense of slavery.

It is fascinating to read over texts circulated in the middle of the 19th century in defense of the practice of slavery. When we look back at how revered politicians, intellectuals, and churchmen could seriously defend a practice that now seems so patently barbaric, we cannot help feeling a twinge of moral superiority. Yet their arguments bear an uncanny resemblance to those now used to defend abortion, almost as if pro-choicers had been using these tracts as fodder for their own rhetoric. From Nancy Pelosi’s “historical argument” (“Slavery was practiced in the greatest civilizations”) to Joe Biden’s “personally opposed” argument (“No one is forcing you to own slaves, just to respect those who do”), all the way to the feminists’ “woman has a right to her own body” argument (“Slaves have been bought and paid for and no one has the right to touch another’s property”) to Obama’s “We don’t know when life begins” argument (“We’re not sure whether black people have souls”), it is truly déjà vu all over again.

I started my Fall theology class today, which is called “Sources and Methods”. It gets into the essence of what theology is and how we go about approaching the subject. Fr. David, our teacher, talked about divine revelation today, so naturally, we looked at Dei Verbum, which is the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation issued by the Second Vatican Council. Fr. David said that the first sentences of Chapter 1 are a fundamental statement worth learning, so as a part of my effort to learn it, I’m going to write it out in my blog.

It has pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the secret purpose of his will (see Eph 1, 9). This brings it about that through Christ, God’s Word made flesh, and in his holy Spirit, human beings can draw near to the Father and become sharers of the divine nature (see Eph 2, 18; 2 Pt 1, 4).

That was from the Tanner translation which Fr. David gave us in a handout. I found the structure of the second sentence a little awkward so I decided to look in the Flannery translation, which is the more widely available (and less expensive) English translation of the Vatican II documents.

It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will (see Eph 1:9), which was that people can draw near to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature (see Eph 2:18; 2 Pet 1:4).

Although the Flannery translation is easier to read, it doesn’t say quite the same thing. Flannery’s seems to say that God revealed the fact that people can draw near to the Father. The Tanner translation says that God’s revelation brings about the opportunity for people to draw near to the Father. That is, according to Flannery, without God’s revelation, we would not have known we could draw near to the Father, but according to Tanner, we would not have been able to draw near to the Father.

I did a little research in the original Latin, and according to my limited knowledge of the language, the Tanner translation is closer. It’s amazing what you can find if you just do a little digging. Unfortunatley, I only have a photocopy of a few pages of Tanner’s Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I will need to someday couch up the $140 required to get the whole thing because I think it would be helpful. Also, I need to learn Latin better, which I may work on after I’ve gotten better at Greek. Oh, and today Fr. David mentioned a good book in French for which there is no good English translation. Of course, I have several books on my shelves in English that I haven’t had time to read yet! I’m glad this life isn’t all we have because if it was, it would be discouraging trying to fit everything in. Of course, if this life was all we had, I don’t think I’d be very interested in Theology.

I just read the following quote from St. Teresa of Avila which is consistent with what I’ve heard of her as someone who is quick witted and spoke her mind. In the passage this quote comes from she is saying that we should approach God in prayer with humility and that we shouldn’t be seeking “consolation”, which is the nice feeling we sometimes feel in prayer. She goes on to say,

Although if some consolation is felt, it shouldn’t cause the disturbance and pain it does to some persons who think that if they aren’t always working with the intellect and striving for devotion all is lost - as though so great a blessing could be merited by their labor. I don’t say that they shouldn’t strive carefully to remain in God’s presence, but that if they can’t even get a good thought, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, they shouldn’t kill themselves. We are useless servants, what do we think we can do?

I think it is important to be serious about our walk with God, but not take ourselves too seriously. We need to do the best we can, and then not be upset when we stumble and fall, and even our best is not very good. We must remember we are useless servants so that we don’t think too much of ourselves in our victories, or go into despair in our failures.