C
CutlerB
Guest
I’ve come across a quote on the Internet from St Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” that is used in support of Sola Scriptura. There are also other quotes from the Fathers that are offered in support. Does anybody know whether these Fathers actually adhered to this principle, or are their quotes taken out of context, etc.?
He goes even further as to claim this (Italics mine for emphasis):
Maybe someone would like to take a look into this and respond. Thank you.
The page presents this quote:“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” — St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1:1
St Gregory of Nyssa is quoted like this:“For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.” — Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) pp. 184, 133, 144.
I doubt highly the validity of the claims the site makes, yet I am not educated well enough on the matter. After all, some of the arguments presented are absurd, such as that the sheer number of Scripture quotations by some Fathers would prove Sola Scriptura, or really even thinking they could be proponents of the author’s own faith, when they strongly affirm teachings he certainly denies as an evangelical (?).“The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please;** we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet**; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” — On the Soul and the Resurrection
He goes even further as to claim this (Italics mine for emphasis):
The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority is not valid.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 …] Rome asserts that, based on Paul’s teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
He’s making quite strong accusations there, and even more one the webpage, but I won’t quote all of them for the sake of brevity.What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because* it does not exist*. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
Maybe someone would like to take a look into this and respond. Thank you.