Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[William_Pitts]

Many Protestant[5] patristic scholars agree that the rule of faith in the early Church consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church[2]. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

[5] JND Kelly, “Tradition and Scripture” Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), F.W. Dillistone, ed., Scripture and Tradition (London: Lutterworth, 1955), D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999)

[2] Congar Yves, Tradition And Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), Gallegos J.A., “What did the Early Fathers teach about Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority” Not by Scripture Alone, Ed. Robert Sungenis (Santa Barbara:Queenship, 1997), Tavard George, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper, 1959)

 

[paul_c]

Ok, I think I’ve defined Sola Scriptura as this on a previous post.

Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.

Parker, It think its great that you decided to define a working definition of sola scriptura for yourself. Lets examine it.

Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures (what scriptures? Who defines this? Doesn’t that immediately contradict the very premise that the bible has infallible authority?)
are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith (which church has accepted this? And under who’s authority? Doesn’t that immediately contradict the very premise that the bible has infallible authority?)
and practice (Where in scripture is church practice infallibly defined? I was not aware that scripture defined how to carry our baptism or holy orders, or how to conduct a mass or how to bury the dead)

Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.
Catholics believe that scripture is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. The difference lies in the fact that without authoritative interpretation, people can infer different doctrines from the same scriptural verse. This is apparent to all otherwise there would be no doctrinal debates among Christians

This brief statement has never implied:

• No authority because the Scriptures designate authority to the Church.
• No discipline because the Scriptures encourage the Church to take up this practice.
• No interpretative abuses because the Scriptures warn the Church about the dangers of heresy.
• No universal interpretation because the Scriptures make room for adiaphoristic differences (e.g. church government and the sacraments).
• No oral tradition because the Scriptures informs the Church of its importance and commands us to adhere to them.
• No progressive revelation because the Scriptures revealed of its existence in the past.

So Parker, these exceptions lead to the obvious question? Why then, do you not submit to the Catholic Church’s interpretation of scripture? You recognize that the Church has authority and must exact discipline and you acknowledge without it, scripture can be abused. Haven’t you in fact, completely dismantled your own definition?

 

[William_Pitts]

Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable
   Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one. But all Christians outside of the Catholic church ought to pay attentions to the last three rules particulary rule number “2” and “3”. Rule “2” states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say. Why? First we were not there to hear and see everything and can easily be fooled into reading something not there into Scripture or reading something out of Scripture. The First Fathers were trained by the Apostles and the preceding Fathers are closer to the time frame allowing for less corruption of the teachings to occur. We are 2,000 years removed from the original source. Second and Most Important is that Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 …Thank God constantly for this, that when you receivedthe word of God Which your heard from us,…

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

We are told that first Christian “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42) which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written.

1Cor 11:2 and hold fast my precepts (oral teaching)

2Tim 1: 13 Hold to the form of sound teaching which thous has heard from me.

Titus 1:3 manifested his word through the preaching committed to my trust by the Command of God

1Thes 2:13 …you heard and received from us the word of God

1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached (Oral teaching) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Furthermore John tells us that everything has not been written down.

John 21:25, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (Not everything concerning Christ is in the Scripture per John)

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me. (John was referring to Old Testament scriptures)

**1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”
**

 

[Shannon9791]

That’s a pretty broad spectrum here because none of them were in existence prior to the writing of scripture. In other words, the canon was complete by the time ECF’s were born.

There were people who lived and taught the Gospel prior to scripture being written.

Again this depends on who and what are you talking about. Take for instance, the canon was written when Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Origen were born. So they had easy access to the scriptures.

I gave you a time frame, prior to all those individuals. Way to dodge a question.

Because the Church did not need a council to recognize what the Scriptures were. Most if not all of them were recognized and practiced as Scripture prior to the council of Nicea which took place in 333/365AD.

Why not? There are lots of texts that didn’t make it into what we consider the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas comes to mind. I’m sure someone thought it probably should have been included. Basically what you’re saying here is that scripture just kinda all came together and no one really needed to figure out what belonged and what didn’t. It just landed on someone’s doorstep all neatly bound with Jesus’ words in red ink and someone said, “Yeah, that looks about right, let’s roll with this.”

In the last thread, I never said the word of God was not spoken at one point.

Parker

OK, so is everything that was spoken written down?

 

[EricFilmer]

And what rules have you been paying attention to lately? Have you actually adhered to a concise definition of what Sola Scriptura means?

It is hard for me to adhere to a concise definition of what Sola Scriptura means when the adherents of Sola Scriptura themselves have no agreed upon concise definition.

But regardless of the variations in definition, it seems to me that all adherents of Sola Scriptura use it to state that for the sake of validity all Christian doctrines must be derived “solely” from Scripture (hence, it is often used to declare that certain Catholic doctrines derived from Sacred Tradition are invalid). In that sense, Sola Scriptura cannot be a valid doctrine based on the Law of Non-contradiction, as I pointed out in Post #96

And just to be clear, when I used the term “doctrine” I mean an official and universal teaching on a matter pertaining to faith and morals.

EricFilmer;7807845:

Even if one or more of the Early Church Fathers explicitly taught Sola Scriptura, one could still not use this as a defense of it unless it is also

explicitly taught in the Bible.

That’s because our assumptions of Sola Scriptura rely heavily on implicit conclusions one can make from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, you are trying to pull a straw man.

Parker

I am not pulling a Straw Man, because I never claimed that you said that Sola Scriptura is explicitly taught in the Bible. Rather, I am saying that if Sola Scriptura is valid then, as far as I am concerned it ought to be explicitly taught in the Bible. Moreover, I do not present my position as simply an opinion, but have made a very rationale case for it in Post #96.

Sola Scriptura presents itself as the foundation for the formulation of all valid Christian doctrine! This is by no means a small matter! In light of that, compare my criticism of Sola Scriptura from Post #96 with your assessment that Sola Scriptura is an “assumption” which “relies heavily upon implicit conclusions one can make from Scripture” (emphasis added). Is the foundation of all valid Christian doctrine truly supposed to itself be derived from assumptions wrangled out of what the Bible might be teaching? (After all, “implicit conclusions” = maybe, maybe not)

And now let us move on to your statement concerning the source of Sola Scriptura:

One draws conclusions from the definitions put forth by the advocates of Sola Scriptura and the implications put forth by the word of God.

Parker

No, Sola Scriptura is not implied by the Bible (assuming that you are equating the Bible with “Word of God”). I challenge you to prove me wrong. In the interest of time, you can simply put forth what you consider to be your strongest biblical argument in favor of Sola Scriptura. If it fails to “pass muster” then we can examine the others, one at a time.

As for the “definitions put forth by the advocates of Sola Scriptura”, unless you think that they are infallible when it comes to defining Scripture and formulating doctrine then you have to admit that they could be wrong when it comes to their definitions regarding Sola Scriptura.

 

[EricFilmer]

I wonder how it is that you can make “implicit conclusions” from the Scriptures, but when Catholics do it ,we are teaching "false doctrines’. Isn’t that an interesting double standard now?

I think that a doctrine as fundamental to the faith as SS should be explicit, don’t you?

Good points, and what blows my mind is why such obvious critiques of Sola Scriptura and the bias of the adherents of Sola Scriptura even need to be pointed out. And yet obviously in discussions such as this they do. Adherents of Sola Scriptura believe that no one on earth has the God-given authority to officially interpret the Bible in a universal way for all Christians. In short, they believe that everyone’s interpretation of Scripture (including theirs’) is both personal and fallible. And yet after deriving Sola Scriptura from their personal and fallible interpretation of certain Bible passages they present it as a principle which all Christians must follow.

This begs the question: where in this process did Sola Scriptura go from personal interpretation to universal principle, and from fallible interpretation to infallible teaching?

 

[pablope]

This is really the nub of the issue, isn’t it.

→ Algo1 agreed that the Catholic Church was the true church but apostasized. He could not define when or where this occurred but offered that there were different interpretations of the real presence over time. He eventually gave up on trying to sow that the Church apostasized, since he had no evidence that this was so.

This is applicable to this thread because it answers your question above…

Well, this is what Algo1 concluded in post 799 of the thread:

[SIGN]Yes. Augustine taught on all four levels of Scripture, including the literal and figurative. He was Catholic. He believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.[/SIGN]

 

[Quatsch]

I haven’t read this thread, but just look at the dates.

Saint Ambrose (c. between 337 and 340 – 4 April 397)

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 313 – 386)

Origen (c. 185–254)

It was in 393 AD that the Synod of Hippo defined the canon of the New Testament.

When they refer to the Scriptures before that synod, they are referring to the Old Testament and not the New Testament.

 

[SyCarl]

I haven’t read this thread, but just look at the dates.

Saint Ambrose (c. between 337 and 340 – 4 April 397)

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 313 – 386)

Origen (c. 185–254)

It was in 393 AD that the Synod of Hippo defined the canon of the New Testament.

When they refer to the Scriptures before that synod, they are referring to the Old Testament and not the New Testament.

Church fathers were using the New Testament books long before any council or synod defined the canon.

Irenaeus tells us that the Apostles’ teachings that they had preached orally were now recorded in Scripture.

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. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)

He was also aware that there were four gospels.

1. Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,—[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the** Gospel by Mark**, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of** that according to John,** to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

1. It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds,” while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground”of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit

(Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 10)

Even more telling is that Peter recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture.

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2Pe 3:14-16 NASB)

 

[Algo1]

Well, this is what Algo1 concluded in post 799 of the thread:

[SIGN]Yes. Augustine taught on all four levels of Scripture, including the literal and figurative. He was Catholic. He believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.[/SIGN]

pablope,
That is not me that you are quoting. Randy mistakenly read a quote from Guanophore thinking that it was from me. I (and Fr. Kilmartin) denied that Augustine believed in the “Literal” change of substance in the consecration. I never denied that Augustine believed in ‘a’ Real Presence, just that he and Pope Gelasius I did not believe that there was a change in the substance. This was one of the points I presented as evidence that Trent ‘added’ to the Gospel in claiming that :

“Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation.”
-Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 4

I presented facts about Pope Gelasius I and Augustine that demonstrate that Trent was ‘wrong’ in their use of “always been held” regarding “conversion of the substance”.
The fact that Trent declared:

Canon I. "If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in a figure, or virtue; let him be anathema."

In spite of the fact that numerous “Saints” and in fact even a “Pope” denied this very thing proves that Trent was wrong and was adding a dogma that did not fit the “Vincentian Principle” of "a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, Chapter XXIV.62.

 

[Algo1]

This is really the nub of the issue, isn’t it. You reject Papal authority, so you have no other choice but to hang to scripture as the only link you have to Christ. But Jesus didn’t leave the scripture to teach the truth about salvation and administer the sacraments, he left a Church to do that. Have you read Matthew 28: 16-20?

Now, it is an historic fact that the Catholic Church is the same church that was commissioned by Jesus on this mountain to spread the gospel. It can be shown that these same Apostles and in the case of Mark and Luke, their followers, wrote the New Testament books. And it can be shown through the early Church Fathers, that these boos were protected by the Church and eventually compiled into the Bible Canon by the Catholic Church as a teaching and liturgical tool. So how do you propose to prove that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. We just finished a 900 post thread on this subject earlier this week.

→ Algo1 agreed that the Catholic Church was the true church but apostasized.

Actually what I said was “The Roman Catholic Church was no longer catholic”

He could not define when or where this occurred but offered that there were different interpretations of the real presence over time.

Actually I gave a very definitive point in history as one example. That being Trent’s declaring the necessity of belief in a “literal change in substance” as a dogma i.e Part Of The Gospel and in my words "an accretion"

He eventually gave up on trying to sow that the Church apostasized, since he had no evidence that this was so.

No, actually I presented my third point which was profoundly received by an audience of crickets:

Then you should have no trouble finding an early writer that describes Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” in the way described by Ineffabilis Deus. In fact, since this was “constantly believed” by the Church:

The Decree of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception of Mary From the Bull Ineffabilis Deus (1854 A.D.).
Since we have never ceased in humility and fasting to offer up our prayers and those of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he might deign to direct and confirm our mind by the power of the Holy Ghost, after imploring the protection of the whole celestial court, and after invoking on our knees the Holy Ghost the Paraclete, under his inspiration we PRONOUNCE, DECLARE, AND DEFINE, unto the glory of the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, the honor and ornament of the holy Virgin the Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and in our own authority, that the doctrine which holds the blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.

…you should be able to find at least one early “christian” writer who describes it in this same way. And alas, the thread was closed.
{my first point was regarding the fact that Cyprian and others never viewed the Bishop of Rome as having ‘universal jurisdiction’}

→ Miguel argued in the same thread that the Catholic Church was never the Apostolic Church, offering instead that the church was simply a community of all believers in Christ. He offered up as proof of his position that Cyprian didn’t always believe in Papal primacy. He ran into huge problems here, because Pope St. Stephen simply refused to continue to communicate with Cyprian after Cyprian refused to recognize Stephen’s authority, which placed Cyprian outside the church. As for the invisible Church, Miguel was simply unable to explain away the fact that the Apostolic church was meant to be visible becuase how else could it teach the truths about the faith. Miguel too gave up.

So, Harper, what is your theory about the true Church? Do you feel that the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, apostasized and is no longer the true church? If so, when was this great apostacy, what was it, and why did Jesus allow his church to falter, when he said that he would be with it to the end of the age (above)?

Or perhaps, you feel the Catholic Church was never the true church. Well, what is the true church then?

This is applicable to this thread because it answers your question above…

Does this help clarify?

 

[Ignatius33]

Readers,
As I continue to read these doctrines put forth by the fathers, I am going to share a couple of interesting quotes suggest even they submitted to the authority of the scriptures, and not the church. In other words, whatever teaching the church proclaims her beliefs must be derived from the Scriptures.
Parker

Catholics certainly believe that the ECFs “submitted to the authority of Scripture.” But I think you create a false dichotomy when you suggest that, if they adhered to the authority of Scripture, they must not have submitted to the authority of the “Church.” For the Catholic position is that the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church are one and the same.

And as I mentioned in post 68, I’m pretty confident that the whole of Catholic teaching is firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture. Perhaps we are somewhat close to agreement on that point. As I see it, however, Tradition is essential to properly interpret Scripture. I tried to demonstrate that the ECFs (both pre and post-Nicene) shared this view in posts 68-71.

Perhaps you’ll allow me to attempt to prove this point a little more concretely. I will try to establish that a distinctly Catholic teaching – i.e., a doctrine uniformly rejected by Protestant teaching – is rooted in Scripture as viewed through the lens of the ECFs/Tradition.

I think a good exemplar would be the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Penance, more colloquially known as Confession or Reconciliation. It seems like a good choice given that all Protestants reject it (that’s my understanding anyway), yet all pre-Reformation Christians (e.g., Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians, Copts, etc.) practice it.

I will assume that Protestants do not believe in Confession because they do not see it clearly laid out in Scripture. A Catholic would reply that she thinks it is, in fact, explicitly found in Scripture (Jn. 20:21-23; Mt. 16:18-19; Mt. 18:18-19). Other passages that could be used to support the Catholic view include Matthew 9:4-8/Matthew 6:38; 2 Corinthians 2:10 and 5:18; and James 5:13-16.

Presumably, a Protestant would respond that these passages – John and Matthew in particular – do not support the notion that Jesus handed on His authority to forgive sins, in a derivative way, to the Church. But the Catholic believes that these passages show that He did. How then are we to resolve our dilemma?

St. Vincent of Lerins offers a reasonable solution. When a disagreement over the proper meaning of Scripture arises, we “must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church” (The Notebooks [434 AD]). After all, some of the ECFs knew the Apostles themselves. Others knew ECFs who knew the Apostles and so on. Given that they were much closer in time to the Apostles, it makes sense to give them substantial deference in interpreting Scripture. Let us therefore strap on the glasses of Tradition and read the disputed Scriptural passages in light of the ECFs.

As I hope to demonstrate momentarily, it seems plain that the ECFs supported the Catholic viewpoint and that the Reformers, in “jettisoning” (as guanophore aptly puts it) this belief because it did not fit their system of theology, disregarded the consistent teaching of the early Church on this point…

con’t.

 

[Ignatius33]

Unfortunately, this list is rather lengthy, but I think it is necessary to include a number of passages to drive home the point.

1. The Didache: “Confess your offenses in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life . . . On the Lord’s Day of the Lord * gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (before 100 AD).
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the mercy of God to sinners, provided they return “with one consent to the unity of Christ and the communion of the bishop” (Letter to the Philadelphians [ca. 105 AD]).
3. St. Irenaeus: “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women in our own district of the Rhone, by saying and doing such things. Their consciences branded as with a hot iron, some of these women make a public confession; but others are ashamed to do this, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies [ca. 180 AD]).
4. Tertullian, while still Catholic, referred to this sacrament as the second plank of salvation after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace (Repentance 203/204 AD).

Tertullian also addressed those who put off confessing their sin because they were ashamed: “mindful more of their shame than of their salvation, like those who hide from the physician the malady they suffer in the secret parts of the body, and thus perish through bashfulness . . . because we withhold anything from the knowledge of men, do we thereby conceal it from God? . . . Is it better to hide and be damned than to be openly absolved?” (id.).

1. St. Hippolytus of Rome observed that bishops “by the Spirit of the high-priesthood have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” [Jn. 20:21-23] (The Apostolic Tradition [ca. 215 AD]).
2. Pope St. Callistus or Agrippinus of Carthage: “I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance” (Peremptory Edict [ca. 218-222 AD]).
3. The Syriac Didascalia explicitly numbers adultery and apostasy among the sins that can be forgiven and exhorts the bishops: “Those who repent their sins heal and receive. For if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art merciless, thou sinnest against the Lord God, because thou dost not obey our Lord and God in acting as He acted; for even He did so to that woman who had sinned, her whom the elders placed before Him and left it to judgment at His hands and went away; He, the one who searcheth the hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the Elders condemned thee, my daughter?’ She saith to Him, ‘No, Lord.’ And our Saviour said, ‘Go, and return no more to this, neither do I condemn thee.’ In this therefore let our Saviour and King and God be to you a sign, O bishops: be like Him that ye may be gentle and humble and merciful and clement” (early 200’s AD).
4. Origen noted that a Christian “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine” (Homilies on Leviticus [after 244 AD]).

Origen further compares the sinner to those whose stomachs are overloaded with undigested food or with the excess of humours and phlegm if they vomit, they are relieved, “so, too, those who have sinned, if they conceal and keep the sin within, they are distressed and almost choked by its humour or phlegm. But if they accuse themselves and confess, they at the same time vomit the sin and cast off every cause of disease” (Homilies on the Psalms [240-242 AD]).

Origen goes on to say: “They who have sinned, if they hide and retain their sin within their breast, are grievously tormented; but if the sinner becomes his own accuser, while he does this, he discharges the cause of his malady. Only let him carefully consider to whom he should confess his sin; what is the character of the physician; if he be one who will be weak with the weak, who will weep with the sorrowful, and who understands the discipline of condolence and fellow-feeling. So that when his skill shall be known and his pity felt, you may follow what he shall advise. Should he think your disease to be such that it should be declared in the assembly of the faithful – whereby others may be edified, and yourself easily reformed – this must be done with much deliberation and the skillful advice of the physician” (id.).

con’t…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Cyprian of Carthage: “Although you sent me a letter in which you ask that consideration be given your desire that, after the [Decian] persecution is over and we begin to gather together again and to meet together with the clergy, peace be then extended to the lapsed, those [aforementioned presbyters] have dared – contrary to the law of the gospel, contrary even to your respectful petition, before penance has been done, before a confession of the most grave and extreme sin has been made, before a hand has been imposed in penance by the bishop and the clergy – to offer on their behalf and to give them the Eucharist; that is, to profane the holy Body of the Lord, in spite of what is written: ‘Whosoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter in Reply to Certain Martyrs and Confessors [250 AD]).

Among other passages, Cyprian also says: “Although for lesser sins it is required that sinners do penance for a just time, after which, according to the rule of discipline, they may come to confession and, through the imposition of hands by the bishop and clergy, may receive the right of communication, now, in an unpropitious time and while the persecution continues, when peace is not yet restored to the Church itself, they are being admitted to communication, and the offering is made in their name; and, not yet having made a confession of sin, not yet having had hands imposed upon them by the bishop and clergy, the Eucharist is given to them, in spite of what is written: ‘Whoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter to Cyprian’s Clergy [250 AD]).

1. Lactantius: “That is the true Church in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject” (Divine Institutes [304-310 AD]).
2. Aphraates the Persian Sage: “You physicians *, then, who are the disciples of our illustrious Physician, you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises [inter 336-345 AD]).
3. St. Hilary of Poitiers: “[On Matthew 18:18] The power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles: In our present condition we are all subdued by the terror of that greatest dread *. And now, out in front of that terror, He sets the irrevocable apostolic judgment, however severe, so that those whom they shall bind on earth, that is, whomsoever they leave bound in the knots of their sins; and those whom they loose, which is to say, those who by their confession receive grace unto salvation – these, in accord with the apostolic sentence, are bound or loosed also in heaven” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 353-355 AD]).
4. St. Athanasius: “As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Fragment Against Novatian [before 373 AD]).
5. St. Epiphanius: “Just as one who has lost virginity has not the ability of regaining it physically, that being a physical impossibility, so too it is with those who fall into some great transgressions after Baptism; and just as one who falls from virginity can have the secondary honor of continence, so also one who commits transgressions of the graver kind after his Baptism has a secondary remedy *” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [374/377 AD]).
6. St. John Chrysostom: “They who inhabit the earth, they who make their abode among men, are entrusted with the dispensation of the things of heaven! Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed’ [Matt. 18:18]. Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can bind only the body. Priests, however, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself, and transcends the very heavens. Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decisions of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ He says, ‘they are forgiven them: whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ [Jn. 20:23]. What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all the judgment to the Son [Jn. 5:22]. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven, elevated above human nature, and freed of its limitations . . . The priests of Judaism had power to cleanse the body from leprosy – or rather, not to cleanse it at all, but to declare a person as having been cleansed [Lev. 14:2-3]. And you know how much contention there was even in those times to obtain the priestly office. Our priests have received the power not of treating with the leprosy of the body, but with spiritual uncleanness; not of declaring cleansed, but of actually cleansing” (The Priesthood [after 386 AD]).

con’t…***

 

[Ignatius33]

Chrysostom pleads with the sinner: “Be not ashamed to approach [the priest] because you have sinned, nay rather, for this very reason approach. No one says: ‘Because I have an ulcer, I will not go near a physician or take medicine’; on the contrary, it is just this that makes it needful to call in physicians and apply remedies. We [priests] know well how to pardon, because we ourselves are liable to sin. This is why God did not give us angels to be our doctors, nor send down Gabriel to rule the flock, but from the fold itself he chooses the shepherds, from among the sheep He appoints the leader, in order that he may be inclined to pardon his followers and, keeping in mind his own fault, may not set himself in hardness against the members of the flock” (Homily on Frequent Assembly [before 407 AD]).

1. Theodore of Mopsuestia: “If we commit a great sin against the commandments . . . we must first induce our conscience with all our power to make haste and repent our sins as is proper, and not permit ourselves any other medicine . . . This is the medicine for sins, established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who make diligent use of it in healing the afflictions of men. You are aware of these things, as also of the fact that God, because He greatly cares for us, gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance; and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come. It behooves us, therefore, to draw near to the priests in great confidence and to reveal to them our sins; and those priests, with all diligence, solicitude and love, and in accord with the regulations mentioned above, will grant healing to sinners. [The priests] will not disclose the things that ought not be disclosed; rather, they will be silent about the things that have happened, as befits true and loving fathers who are bound to guard the shame of their children while striving to heal their bodies” (Catechetical Homilies [before 428 AD]).
2. St. Pacian of Barcelona: “Certainly God never threatens the repentant; rather, He pardons the penitent. You will say that it is God alone who can do this. True enough; but it is likewise true that He does it through His priests, who exercise His power. What else can it mean when He says to His Apostles: ‘Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. Why should he say this if He were not permitting men to bind and to loose? Why, if He were permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize, them alone to Confer the Holy Spirit, them alone to cleanse the pagans of their sins; for all of these things are commissioned not to others but to the Apostles. But if the loosing of bonds and the power of the Sacrament is given to anyone in that place, either the whole is passed on to us from the form and power of the Apostles, or nothing of it can be imparted to us by whatever decrees . . . If, then, the power both of Baptism and Confirmation, greater by far than charisms, is passed on to the bishops, so too is the right of binding and of loosing . . . ‘Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. ‘Whatever you shall loose,’ He says; and He excepts absolutely nothing. ‘Whatever,’ He says: whether it be great or whether it be small” (Three Letters to the Novatianist Sympronian [inter 375-392 AD]).

Pacian also writes: “But what can he do who was contemptuous of God? What shall the murderer do? What remedy shall the fornicator find? . . . These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: ‘Are we then about to perish? . . . Are we to die in our sins?’ . . . I appeal first to you brethren who refuse penance for your acknowledged crimes: you, I say, who are timid after your impudence, who are bashful after your sins, who were not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess . . . Remember that confession extinguishes hell for you” (Sermon Exhorting to Penance [before 392 AD]).

1. St. Basil the Great: “It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted” (Rule Briefly Treated [374 AD]).
2. Apostolic Constitutions: “Grant him, O Lord almighty, through Thy Christ, the participation of Thy Holy Spirit, in order that he may have the power to remit sins according to Thy precept and Thy command, and to loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou hast granted to the Apostles” (ca. 400 AD).
3. St. Jerome, comparing the priests of the New Law with those of the Old who dealt with leprosy, says “likewise in the New Testament the bishops and the priests bind or loose . . . in virtue of their office, having heard various sorts of sinners, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed” (Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 398 AD]).

Jerome says: “If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound to his brother and to his master, then his brother and his master, who have the word that will cure him, cannot very well assist him. For if the sick man is ashamed to confess his wound to the physician, medicine will not cure that to which it is not applied” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes [ca. 388-389 AD]).

Jerome also remarks: “let no one find it irksome to show his wound because without confession he cannot be healed” (Sermon on Penance [before 419 AD]).

con’t…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Ambrose of Milan: “Things that are impossible with men are possible with God. God is able, whenever He wills, to forgive us our sins, even those we think cannot be forgiven. Thus it is possible for God to give us what to us seems impossible to obtain. Now, it seemed impossible that sin should be washed away in water . . . But what was impossible was made possible by God, who gave us so great a grace. It seemed likewise impossible for sins to be forgiven through penance; yet Christ granted even this to His Apostles, and by His Apostles it has been transmitted to the offices of priests. That has been made possible, therefore, which seemed to be impossible” (Penance [387/390 AD]).

Ambrose rebukes the Novatianists who “professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal” (id.).

Ambrose goes on to say: “For inasmuch as the Lord Jesus Himself said in the Gospel: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained [Jn. 20:22-23], who is it that honors Him most, he who obeys His bidding or he who rejects it?” (id.).

Ambrose further remarks: “What fellowship, then, can they * have with You *, who receive not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying that they ought not to remit sins? And this confession is indeed rightly made by them [the Novatianists], for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And the vessel of divine election himself * said: ‘If you have forgiven anything to any one, I forgive also, for what I have forgiven I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ’ [2 Cor. 2:10]. Why, then, do they read Paul’s writings, if they think that he has erred so wickedly as to claim for himself the right of his Lord? But he claimed what he had received, he did not usurp that which was not due to him” (id.).

Ambrose makes clear that the power to forgive extends to all sins: “God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception” (id.).

1. Paulinus of Milan: “[Ambrose] rejoiced also with those who rejoiced, and wept with those who wept. For whenever anyone confessed his sins to him to receive a penance, he so wept that he forced the penitent too to weep. For he considered that he was himself in a state similar to that of the penitent. But when cases of crimes were confessed to him, he spoke of it to none but the Lord alone, with whom he interceded; and thus he left a good example to later priests, to be intercessors with God rather than accusers among men. For even according to the Apostle, love is to be confirmed in dealing with a person of this kind [2 Cor. 2:8]; for he has become his own accuser who does not wait for but anticipates the accuser; and thus, by confessing, he lightens his own sin, lest he have something of which the adversary might accuse him” (Life of St. Ambrose [ca. 420 AD]).
2. St. Augustine: “The remission of sins is their unbinding . . . Let this be in the heart of the penitent: when you hear a man confessing his sins, he has already come to life again; when you hear a man lay bare his conscience in confessing, he has already come forth from the sepulcher; but he is not yet unbound. When is he unbound? By whom is he unbound? ‘Whatever you loose on earth,’ He says, ‘shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. Rightly is the loosing of sins able to be given by the Church” (Explanation of the Psalms [inter 392-418 AD]).

Augustine also warns the faithful: “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church” (Christian Combat [396/397 AD]).

Augustine sweeps aside the notion that confession could be done between the sinner and God alone, without the aid of an intermediary: “Let no one say I do penance secretly; I perform it in the sight of God, and He who is to pardon me knows that in my heart I repent.” Whereupon, Augustine asks: “Was it then said to no purpose, ‘What you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ [Matt. 16:19] Was it for nothing that the keys were given to the Church?” (Sermon 392 [391-430 AD]).

Augustine writes: “I realize what the incontinent can say . . . that if a man, accusing his wife of adultery, kills her, this sin, since it is finished and does not perdure in him, if it is committed by a catechumen, is absolved in Baptism; and, if it is done by one who is baptized, it is healed by Penance and reconciliation” (Adulterous Marriages [419-420 AD]).

con’t…***

 

[Ignatius33]

Augustine also wrote: “Let no one say: ‘I did that; perhaps I will not be forgiven.’ Because you did it? How great is the sin you committed? Tell me what you have done, something serious, something horrible, something terrifying even to think about. Whatever you might have done, did you kill Christ? There is nothing worse than having done that, because there is nothing better than Christ. How great a wrong is it to kill Christ? But the Jews killed Him; and afterwards many of them believed in Him and drank His Blood: and the sin which they had committed was forgiven them. When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God, so that you may preserve your Baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins; for light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. What does the prayer say? ‘Forgive us our debts as we too forgive our debtors’ [Matt. 6:12]. We are cleansed only once by Baptism; by prayer we are cleansed daily. But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the Body of Christ *; perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities: that is why they are doing penance. If their sin were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in Baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet, God does not forgive sins except to the baptized” (Sermon to Catechumens, On the Creed [ca. 395 AD]).

Again, Augustine states: “Yet those who do penance in accord with the kind of sin they have committed are not to despair of receiving God’s mercy in the Holy Church, for the remission of their crimes, however serious. In the penitential action, however, where the crime committed was such that he who committed it is separated from the body of Christ, it is not so much the length of time as the depth of sorrow that is to be considered” (The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love [421 AD]).

1. Pope St. Innocent: “Regarding these *, the earlier practice was more severe, the later more tempered with mercy. The former custom was that penance should be granted, but Communion denied; for in those times persecutions were frequent, hence, lest the easy admission to Communion should fail to bring back from their evil ways men who were sure of reconciliation, very rightly Communion was refused, while penance was granted in order that the refusal might not be total . . . But after Our Lord had restored peace to his Churches, and terror had ceased, it was judged well that Communion be given the dying lest we should seem to follow the harshness and sternness of the heretic Novatian in denying pardon. Communion, therefore, shall be given at the last along with penance, that these men, if only in the supreme moment of death, may, with the permission of Our Savior, be rescued from eternal destruction” (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse [405 AD]).
2. Pope St. Celestine expressed horror at learning that “penance was refused the dying and that the desire of those was not granted who in the hour of death sought this remedy for their soul” – this, he says, is “adding death to death and killing with cruelty the soul that is not absolved” (Letter to the bishops of Vienne and Narbonne [428 AD]).
3. St. Cyril of Alexandria: “[On John 20:23]: In what way, then, and by what reason does the Savior bestow upon His own disciples the dignity which belongs to the divine nature alone? Certainly, the Word, who is in the Father, would not err in what is seemly, and what He does is right and proper. He considered that those who already had in themselves the Divine and Lordly Spirit ought to be lords also of forgiving the sins of some, and of retaining those of others if they wished, the Holy Spirit indwelling in them forgiving or retaining according to their own will, even though the matter is executed directly through men. Men filled with the Spirit of God * forgive sins or retain them, it seems to me, in two ways, for either they call to Baptism those who are worthy, men already tested for the faith by the sobriety and constancy of their lives, or they prohibit and exclude the divine grace those who are not yet worthy; or in still another way they forgive and retain sins when sons of the Church conquer their sins and, confessing them, reform their lives” (Commentary on John [before 429 AD]).
4. Salaman the Church historian: “Because to be entirely without sin belongs more to divine than to human nature, God has decreed that pardon is to be extended to those who repent even after many transgressions. Since in asking pardon it is necessary to confess the sin, it seems likely that from the very beginning priests saw that it was burdensome for the people to confess their sins in public and with the whole church as witness. So they appointed a presbyter who could conduct himself with the utmost self-control and prudence to be in charge of this. It was to him that the penitents went to confess their transgressions. His was the task of assessing the penalty that had to be exacted for each sin and, when satisfaction had been made, of absolving them” (History of the Church [ca. 439 AD]).

con’t***

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Pope St. Leo the Great forbids as an abuse “contrary to the Apostolic rule” the reading out in public of a written statement of their sins drawn up by the faithful because, he declares, “it suffices that the guilt of conscience be manifested to priests alone in secret confession” (Letter to the bishops of Campania [ca. 459 AD]).

In another epistle, after declaring that by Divine ordinance the mercy of God can be obtained only through the supplication of the priests, Leo adds: “the mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, gave the rulers of the Church this power that they should impose penance on those who confess and admit them when purified by salutary satisfaction to the communion of the sacraments through the gateway of reconciliation” (Epistle to Theodore, Bishop of Rejus, No. 108 [442 AD]).

Again, Leo says: “Neither satisfaction is to be forbidden nor reconciliation denied to those who in time of need and imminent danger implore the aid of penance and then of reconciliation.” After pointing out that penance should not be deferred from day to day until the moment “when there is hardly space either for the confession of the penitent or his reconciliation by the priest,” he adds that even in these circumstances “the action of penance and the grace of communion should not be denied if asked for by the penitent” (id.).

1. St. Fulgence of Ruspe: “From this Church even those who are involved in various errors outside the Church can receive the forgiveness of their sins, if, while they are still in this world, they will be converted to this same Church in a correct belief and in contrite and heartfelt humility. Let them hasten, then, while there is yet time, to their legitimate Mother *, who diligently sustains and nourishes the sons born of her womb . . . Let them abandon heresy and return quickly to the Catholic Church. Let them neither doubt the possession of their inheritance nor despair of the forgiveness of their sins. For anyone who does not believe that within the Catholic Church all sins can be loosed deprives himself of the forgiveness of sins if, persevering in the same hardness of an impenitent heart, he departs from this world alienated from the Church’s society” (The Forgiveness of Sins [512-523 AD]).
2. Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God’s stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them. It was fitting that they be so raised up by God, when they had consented to be so grossly humiliated for God’s sake. See, they who feared the strict judgment of God have become judges of souls, and they who feared that they would themselves be condemned now either condemn others or release them. Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and of loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden . . . Reasons, therefore, must be reflected upon; and then the power of binding and of loosing is to be exercised. It must be seen what fault preceded, or what repentance followed after that fault, so that the sentence of the pastor may absolve those on whom Almighty God bestows the grace of compunction” (Homilies on the Gospels [590-591 AD]).

Pope Gregory further teaches “the affliction of penance is efficacious in blotting out sins when it is enjoined by the sentence of the priest when the burden of it is decided by him in proportion to the offense after weighing the deeds of those who confess” (In I Reg., III, v, n.13 [before 604 AD]).

**) St. Thomas Aquinas, although he lived long after the patristic era, is still worth quoting: “As our Lord said to His disciples [Matt. 28:18]: ‘Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them,’ etc., so did He say to Peter [Matt. 16:19]: ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,’ etc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of Christ says: ‘I baptize thee.’ Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament [of Penance]: ‘I absolve thee’” (Summa Theologica III, Q. 84, Art. 3 [1265-1274 AD]).

“Therefore it is evident that after [mortal] sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation, even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease” (id. III, Q. 84, Art. 5).

“The grace which is given in the sacraments descends from the Head to the members. Wherefore he alone who exercises ministry over Christ’s true body is a minister of the sacraments, wherein grace is given; and this belongs to the priest alone, who can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, since grace is given in the sacrament of Penance, none but the priest is the minister of the sacrament: and consequently sacramental confession which should be made to a minister of the Church should be made to none but a priest” (id. Suppl., Q.8, Art. 1).*

 

[ESMDHokie77]

talk about a List! Thank yoU!

 

[Algo1]

(Continuation)

Irenaeus (130-c. 200)
If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper3219 for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.
ANF: Vol I Against Heresies, 2.28.3

And, if you continue reading, you’ll see the context of this passage. From St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 28, Sections 3 and 4. (Picking up were you left off.)

Yes, I am aware of the context and who he is writing against.

Again, St. Irenaeus is opposing heretics (I believe Gnostics in this case). He’s opposing fabricated stories about God and contrasting them to true Revelation. He’s not claiming that this true Revelation could not originate from both Tradition (that handed down) and Scripture.

He is opposing the Gnostics that hold to a form of Viva Voce (Living Voice) that they claim as the method by which they received Sacred Tradition.

Oscar Cullmann: Despite the deep gulf between them in other respects, is it not true to say that the Catholic Church, Gnosticism, and ancient and modern sects which claim a superior enlightenment, are at one in denying that scripture is a superior norm for the testing of the genuine activity of the Holy Spirit? The Church will examine every later revelation, individual or collective, but will always take as criterion this norm (scripture) of the apostolic witness. The Church will therefore not be a superior tribunal able to decree what must be added to this norm.

• Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, trans. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 83.*

St. Irenaeus, in this same book (Against Heresies), is quite clear about the place of Tradition and Scripture. I’ve already quoted two of his passages in other posts. You can’t take passages out of context and try to counter what he clearly taught on the subject.

Yes, I am familiar with the writings you posted as are a number of historians and theologians:

One wonders how many times Irenaeus’ own testimony must be brought forward to dispel the notion that he viewed the essence of apostolic tradition to be anything other than the substance of that which was deposited in Holy Scripture. ** Indeed, it was the very notion of an extrabiblical body of oral tradition that Irenaeus charges was first objected to the Church’s witness by certain Gnostic heretics. Refusing to be bound to the testimony of Scripture alone, the Gnostics, appealed to a living tradition. The similarities between the ancient heresy of the Gnostics and the claims of Roman Catholicism are brought into sharp focus in the following quotation from Irenaeus:
**

**Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): **
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, **and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: **

ANF: Vol. I, Book 3:2:1. See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Vol 1 (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 92-93, 115, where he discusses this passage from Irenaeus. See also the explanation of Martin Chemnitz on this passage from Irenaeus in his Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, pp. 233-234. Frances Turretin, likewise, drew attention to this similarity between the charges of Roman Catholic controversialists in his day and the Gnostic heretics of whom Irenaeus speaks in this passage. See his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 1, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), pp. 85-86, (II.vi.1).

continued