M
- Status
A
Apologist78
Guest
Sir, it is my contention as a faithful Catholic that to even ask such questions of the ECF is to read into them questions and issues that they were not dealing with. The same goes for the Catholic notion of Tradition. If we read the ECF with the intention of trying to discover whether they were “Sola Scripturaist” or “Scripture and Tradition” we will not get a clear answer. At times the ECF come out strongly in favor of Tradition and Scripture, at times they do seem to reflect a more protestant notion of “Sola Scriptura.” I am not saying the ECF are divided on the issue, I am simply saying that since there was not as clearly refined theology of Revelation, nor the role of Scripture and Tradition it is difficult to find and discern something clear.
This is born out in J.N.D. Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrine.” When reading his chapter on Scripture and Tradition in the early Church, he himself does not seem to be clear on what the position was. In his own chapter it seems in places he argues for the Catholic understanding, then in other places for the protestant understanding.
Sola Scriptura at its essence, its most basic theology is the assertion that it is possible for the Church to teach that which is outside the Bible, or beyond the Bible. Furthermore it is the notion that the Church can err. Hence Scripture Alone must serve as the final norm, the Supreme Norm of all Christian Doctrine.
This idea (that the Church might possibly err, or teach something outside the Scriptures) developed in the Middle Ages, and it is out of this which the notion becomes more fully developed with the Reformers. Sola Scriptura at least as held by the protestants assumes a very specific model of Revelation called the “Doctrinal” or “Propositional” model. The point is that none of the above issues were really on the mind of the Church Fathers. They were dealing with very specific questions and heresies. Whether the Church could or could not err, whether the Church could or would teach something outside of Scripture are later questions which started to be asked for various and assorted reasons. What I have written does not even begin to examine the role of Nominalist Philosophy on the two pillars of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
In short I think both sides are reading into the ECF more then is intended, becasue for every passage the protestant cites in favor of Sola Scriptura, Catholics can cite a passage in favor of “Scripture and Tradition.” For every passage the Catholic can cite in favor of “Scripture and Tradition” the protestant can cite a passage in favor of “Sola Scriptura.”
M
M0nkey
Guest
Interesting post, that goes with saying when protestants read the epistles of Paul they sometimes read into doctrines that Paul himself was not intending to reveal, i.e. eternal security, justification, predestined election. Which would lead to a problem of interpretation once something is taken out of it’s Sacred Tradition (Divine Revelation).
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
You will not find many if any ECFs I know of who will tear down Tradition in favor of Sola Scriptura. Passages for Sola Scriptura will often be taken out of context from an author who clearly appeals to the Church’s Tradition elsewhere.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Augustine taught that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition.
“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
*“For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and in trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith which we are imbued.” *
On the Gospel of John, Homily XVlll:1
Augustine recognized the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. He was aware that it was the Magisterium which determined the canon of Scripture in the first place.
“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.”
Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5
For Augustine the deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. I’m sure Augustine would have felt the same way about Luther and Calvin as he did Manichaeus.
*“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in the Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning with the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent?” *
Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6
Scripture must not be divorced from the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church.”
Trinitas 4, 6, 10
If only Luther had listened to Augustine. :doh2:
PAX :harp:
“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
- On Christian Doctrine, 3, 2:2*
*“For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and in trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith which we are imbued.” *
On the Gospel of John, Homily XVlll:1
Augustine recognized the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. He was aware that it was the Magisterium which determined the canon of Scripture in the first place.
“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.”
Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5
For Augustine the deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. I’m sure Augustine would have felt the same way about Luther and Calvin as he did Manichaeus.
*“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in the Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning with the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent?” *
Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6
Scripture must not be divorced from the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church.”
Trinitas 4, 6, 10
If only Luther had listened to Augustine. :doh2:
PAX :harp:
A
Apologist78
Guest
For the protestant that is not the question. The question is the ROLE the Fathers saw for Tradition. Protestants GRANT the ECF saw a role for Tradition. Protestants however would argue that the ECF would have not normed Scripture by Tradition, but rather the other way around. Protestants argue that the ECF saw Tradition as subordinate to the Scripture, becasue the Scripture is God Breathed, NOT Tradition. Hence it only makes sense that “That which is not God Breathed is normed by that which IS.”
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I realize that’s what Protestants say, but when it is examined, it falls apart. I just didn’t want people to think you could get the Father’s to legitimately argue for sola scriptura. A person really can’t.
A
Apologist78
Guest
I am saying that I don’t believe EITHER SIDE can try to legetimize their positions with the ECF becasue the ECF themselves do not appear to be clear as we would like. As I said they sound very protestant in some areas in their views on Scripture, and sound very Catholic in other areas.
I think the ECF have to be read as a WHOLE- and I don’t mean just on Sola Scriptura/Tradition questions but on EVERYTHING. Seen this way, there is of course no doubt that they are Catholic. But when we try to narrow the discussion too much, I am not sure we will always get clarity. Sometimes we will, but not always.
Quite frankely I think those who espouse the fact the Sola Scriptura is historical make a compelling case, and I have yet to see anything from the popular Catholic apologists which I feel sufficienty refutes the protestant case. Now, this does not imply that I AGREE with the protestants, only that I believe their works are well reasoned, well written, and very scholarly. They raise some very good questions and points which I think are either ignored, dismissed as irrelavent, or caracturized on the Catholic side.
M
M0nkey
Guest
How so? The early church did not even have the cannon of scripture, any case that’s in favor of sola scriptura is quintessentially historically flawed.
I’m no expert in Sacred Tradition, but I’m aware that the historical Jesus, the one followed by people who in good faith listened to him, was a messiah who taught verbally. Early christians were not bible thumping christians.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I agree with you, the ECFs must obviously be taken as a whole. However, I have been at this a long time, and have never seen a compelling Protestant case. Everyone that appeared compelling at first became specious upon further examination. If you perhaps provide or link to an example of what you consider an unchallenged Protestant case for ECFs and sola scriptura, that would help.
A
Apologist78
Guest
Lets get something clear: The Canon existed in the early Church. There is a distinction between Canon, and canon.
Canon exists as soon as God authors it. This means as soon as Paul penned his writtings they were Canon. Hence by 100AD the complete Canon (That which is God Breathed) was in existence. The complete Bible existed before the death of the last apostle.
While the Canon existed, it indeed did take some time for the Church to recognize and recieve that which is God Breathed. It is important to note however that the Church does not create the Canon, the Church simply recieves and submits to Canon. The process of recognition is a process guided by the Holy Spirit.
In any case the Canon argument so often used (I think Catholic Apologists over use it) breaks down when the question is asked “And tell me sir: how did a Jewish person know what Scripture was? How did they know Canon? It would seem they knew what Canon was becasue Jesus held them accountable to it. How could Jesus hold them accountable to Scripture they don’t know about? The funny thing is that there was no pope telling them what Canon was either.” The protestant reasons that the same way the Jewish people discovered Canon, is the same way the Church discovered Canon. That seems to make sense, since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The process was pretty much the same for the NT Church as it was for the Jewish people.
A
Apologist78
Guest
Let me do some hunting.
A
Apologist78
Guest
Alright, I found some quotes. Before I quote them let me give a primer on Sola Scriptura from the protestant perspective.
Before getting down the definition, I first have to show what the protestant says Sola Sciptura does NOT DENY:
- The authority of tradition
- The authority of the Church
- That revelation itself is limited soley to the Bible. The position allows for General Revelation.
- That Scripture is meant to be exhaustive in terms of Revelation.
What is Sola Scriptura? Very simply, Sola Scripura states that the Scriptures Alone are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. The Scriptures serve as the Supreme Norm, the Norm of Norms without Norm. Scripture is called that which is God Breathed, Tradition nor the Church are ever called God Breathed, and Catholics even teach Tradition and the Church are not God Breathed. Hence it stands to reason that that which is NOT God Breathed is subject to and normed by that which IS God Breathed. Seen this way, whatever authority the Church has, whatever authority Tradition has is Normed by Scripture. Tradition and Scripture submit to the higher authority of God’s Holy and Inerrant Word. Tradition and the Church function with authority, but both submit to the higher Norm or authority of Scripture. Scripture is THE Norm, the Church and Tradition are norms. (small n.)
Sola Scriptura secondarily is an epistimological claim. This is to say that Scripture fixes the Rule of Faith. All doctrines and dogmas are measured against Scripture which is the “Norm” the “Canon” the “Plumb Line” the “Level” the “Measuring Stick.”
Now, there are those who naturally maintain that Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura, BUT there are those who maintain Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, just as the Scientific Method does not teach the Scientific Method. Sola Scriptura is NOT in this view a doctrine, but rather an epistomological issue which fixes Scripture as the Rule.
The arguments in favor of Scripture teaching Sola Scriptura are many, and I will save you the protestant exegesis of 2 Timmothy 3:16. But here are some of them:
- Scripture NEVER points to Tradition in the sense that Tradition is an authority OVER or ALONG SIDE Scripture. When Jesus debates with anyone, if he quotes anything it is ALWAYS Scripture. NEVER does Jesus say “For Tradition has it” or “For the Church says.” It is always “The Scripture says.” Tradition if accepted at all is subordinated to Scripture.
- Scripture itself NEVER points the Christian to ANYTHING but itself. Nowhere do we see Scripture saying “When refuting heresy, look to Rome.” “When refuting all that is untrue, look to your bishop who succeds the apostles.” (etc) The protestant reasons “If bishops, and the pope are so important, doesn’t it stand to reason that which is God Breathed would point us to them?”
- Timmothy was a leader in the Church, and Paul pointed him not to some Tradition, not to some pope, but right back to the Scriptures. To say “Well, Paul had in mind the OT therefore the statement is irrelavent” will not suffice. The issue at stake is the NATURE of Scripture, NOT what Canon is.
A
Apologist78
Guest
It is important to keep in mind that when the ECF debate they use the Scriptures primarily. They spend much of their time exegeting the Scriptures.
I cite from Athanasius what I believe is a particulary strong quote:
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by change they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptues of God.”
The protestant asks:
“Now tell me, how can we know if the bishops err if we lack the authority to hold them accountable to the Scriptures? Rome expects us to submit to whatever she infallibly says, yet here we see one of her alleged saints and bishops saying something different. The bishop seems to take Scripture, NOT Rome, NOT the bishops as the starting point of all true doctrine. The Catholic today however begins with the pope and bishops, then work to Scripture.”
Again, I do not mean to defend the protestant position at all. Nor do I agree the ECF were protestant at all. A full reading of history naturally bears this out. All I want is for the so called Catholic Apologists to take a deeper look at the arguments protestants make. To me it seems they only deal with them on a platonic level and miss the greater point. I want to be clear however I am not defending the protestants, BUT I am not afraid of open and honest academic debate. Lets face them head on, for we have nothing to fear from Truth.
To point to passages from the ECF which mention tradition will not suffice since the debate is NOT over whether tradition serves as a norm, but the ROLE of tradition within the Church.
I have other quotes I can give if you wish, but lest start here.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
scriptures are authoritive in as much as the church says they are God-breathed. if scriptures held a higher authority to tradition, then why doesn’t the bible have a holy table of contents. this is a catch 22 for claiming the authority of scriptures over the church or tradition. they all work together, working towards the same end. this is the most common sensical answer and most reasonable.
scriptures never call scriptures the pillar of truth. the church is. with your logic, does it stand to reason the scriptures are not true? i don’t think so.
doctrines are forged through dissent and heresies. while always in the bible, a declaration that the dueterocanonicals were equal to the other scriptures didn’t happen until the council of trent. until then, there were various opinions held as to their equality with the rest of the scriptures.
seems to me that you are trying to argue that scripture is above the tradition which is necessary to understand it and the magisterium which is necessary to identify it. it’s a three leg stool, if you take one away, the other two will fall.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
A
Apologist78
Guest
And the protestant will come back with “Fine, how do you know you can trust the Church?” The problem for them is that according to us we need an infallible Church to infallibly teach us what constitutes Scripture. Fine. Who infallibly tells us that the Church is infallible, so we can trust their infallible judgment that the Scriptures are infalible? See the issue?
CATHOLIC: “We know what Canon is, becasue the Church says so.”
PROTESTANT: “And how do you know the Church is correct?”
CATHOLIC" “Becasue the Church says so.”
PROTESTANT: “Becasue the Church says so? Isn’t that circular?”
CATHOLIC: “No, history bears this out, and so does Scripture.”
PROTESTANT: “Really? And how do you know that?”
CATHOLIC: “Becasue the Church says so.”
PROTESTANT: “See, you keep comming back to the Church. Sounds to me like I am Sola Scriptura, you are Sola Ecclesia.”
CATHOLIC: “No. The Church is not Sola Ecclesia, the Church has three norms: Tradition, Scripture, Magesterium.”
PROTESTANT: “Who delimits Scripture?”
CATHOLIC: “Why the Church of course.”
PROTESTANT: “Who claims authortative interpretation of Scripture?”
CATHOLIC: “Why the Church of course.”
PROTESTANT: “Who delimits Tradition?”
CATHOLIC: “The Church, who else?”
PROTESTANT: “Who interprets Tradition?”
CATHOLIC: “The Church.”
PROTESTANT: “How is this not Sola Ecclesia? If the Church determines the extent and meaning of Scripture, if the Church determines the extant and meaning of Tradition, then how is this not Sola Ecclesial?”
This is what the protestant would argue. To this I have issued a very simple challange to the protestant which usually stifles them. I say “Sir, produce for me a list or lists of all the other organizations which you feel are better qualified then the Body of Christ to 1) delimit and interpret Scripture, 2) delimit and interpret Tradition.” Tell me why you feel that the very organization in which Scripture and Tradition were given should not be the one to delimit and interpret both Scripture and Tradition? Unless you can produce just one organization better qualified then the Church to delimit and interpret Scripture and Tradition, I fail to see why it is a bad thing to place my trust soley in the Church on these matters.
The only response I have gotten to this challange is something like “Well you assume the Catholic Church is the only Church.”
Apologist78,
First, thank you for having an honest understanding the protestant view of Tradition and SS.
To answer your initial question: There is no better organization to answer the questions you ask than the Body of Christ. And at the expense of sounding like your final quote, the fact is the Body of Christ is more than the Catholic Church.
To that end, I ask this: how has the authority of the Church changed since the early councils? Did that change lead, at least in part, to the great schism? Finally, could a true ecumenical council, including the EO and protestants serve as a vehicle to overcome some of our differences?
Jon
A
Apologist78
Guest
I don’t disagree that the “Body of Christ” is comprised of more then the visible structures of the Roman Catholic Church. The Body of Christ is comprised of all the baptized. However what I would say, and I think my fellow Catholics on here would say is that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest, most complete expression of the truth of Christianity. Protestant expresses the truth of the Christian Faith, but less fully, and less completely then the Catholic Faith.
Hence while protestant Church- which is to say those communities which lack full communion with the Church of Rome reflect the truth, the Catholic Church more fully reflects the truth. Hence the surest way to stay in the truth and know the truth is to be in communion with the Church of Rome.
I am not so sure that authority of the Church has changed. I grant that at different times, different vehicles and manifestations of Church authority have been emphasized, but I don’t think the authority has changed all that much. The bishops were always the teachers of the Faith, and the laity were always expected to heed their teaching. I guess my question to you is “Can you explain how you see that the authority of the Church has changed over the centuries?”
Reconciliation with the Orthodox is possible, but with the other protestants- I am not certain. They would essencially have to give up everything that makes them protestant: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Secondly such would be difficult since there is no unified body on anything. There is no “head” of the protestant Church which functions like the pope who can speak for the protestant Church. Baptists have said to me “A Baptist should never speak for another Baptist.” Really? The unity of the Chrsitian Faith should be such that we should all be able to speak for each other.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
i was explaining why sola scriptora is untenable, not on how to demonstrate the authority of the catholic church.
the best written historical data about what Jesus did and said comes from the scriptures. it also comes to us through oral tradition as well.
using the scriptures as reliable historical evidence, we can read that Jesus chose apostles to spread the gospel who appointed successors to perpetuate this faith through the ages.
basically, the bible documents that Jesus created a single visible church which later produced the bible–the bible didn’t create the church.
since the church created the bible, it is entrusted with it and interprets it faithfully.
what the protestants are saying is that your faith in your church is no more certain than our faith in our church. but we can show them how our faith is more resonable and therefore more likely to be true.
sola scriptura is silly.
What I was alluding to was the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, not the case in the early church.
I should have been more specific. Let me narrow the question to, say, Lutherans and Anglicans. As for the Orthodox, would they ever accept the Bishop of Rome as anything more than first among equals? BTW, if they did accept the primacy of the pope, and reconcile on those grounds, I would consider that such dramatic and undeniable evidence of the influence of the Holy Spirit, I would have difficulty staying where I am.
Jon
- Status