Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[elvisman]

It is fairly easy to find quotes from the early church fathers. None of the quotes you give really shows any doctrinal oral tradition separate from Scripture. Examples of non-scriptural tradition they refer to generally refers to ecclesiastical practices and other unnecessary matters.

Here are some quotes as well.

Hippolytus

(Against Noetus, Paragraph 9)
newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm

**Cyril of Jerusalem **

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Notice he refers to tradition and learning from the church but also indicates that those teachings and traditions are taken from Scripture with no indication of a separate oral tradition in addition to Scripture.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, Paragraph 17)
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

(to be continued)

This is the comment from haparker321 to which I was referring:
“The church has yet to prove that whatever is spoken orally and not found/derived from Scriptures count as an additional source as both Sacred tradition and the word of God from Scripture and the ECF.
They looked to the Scriptures as the sole basis and justifications for their beliefs which is what Sola Scriptura said all along.”**
**

---

This statement is patently* false, as I have illustrated from the comments of Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius and Tertullian.****
** Your charge that the non-Scriptural traditions the ECFs spokewere discussing** "ecclesiastical practices and other unnecessary matters" is preposterous because the canon of Scripture itself was on of those “unnecessary matters” . . .

 

[Ignatius33]

Here are some passages suggesting that the ECFs affirmed the reality and necessity of Sacred Tradition, and held to the view that Sacred Tradition was necessary to properly interpret Sacred Scripture. In other words, the ECFs affirmed that Scripture must be interpreted through the lens of Tradition and the Church, not individualistic interpretations by individual readers of the Bible.

Incidentally, I’m not necessarily denying that all revealed truth can be found within Sacred Scripture (nor do I think the Catholic Church has explicitly stated that all doctrine cannot be found, in some form, within Sacred Scripture) – rather I’m saying that Sacred Scripture is not self-interpretive and that Sacred Tradition is essential to determining true doctrine. In other words, one can view Sacred Tradition as nothing more than the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Maybe I’m wrong in saying this, and I’m open to correction, but that seems to be a legitimate position that a Catholic may hold vis-a-vis Scripture and Tradition.

1. St. Irenaeus:

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.”

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about . . . For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.”

“When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life . . . If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches *?” (Against Heresies [ca. 180 AD]).

1. St. Clement of Alexandria:

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it” (Stromata [after 202 AD]).

1. Origen:

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines [inter 220-230 AD]).

1. St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [253 AD]).

con’t…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Tertullian:

“If these things are so, then it follows that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic Churches, those nurseries and original depositories of the faith, must be regarded as truth, and as undoubtedly constituting what the Churches received from the Apostles, and what the Apostles received from Christ, and what Christ received from God. And indeed, every doctrine must be prejudged as false, if it smells of anything contrary to the truth of the Churches and of the Apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then for us to demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we gave the rule above, accords with the tradition of the Apostles, in which case all other doctrines proceed from falsehood. We communicate with the apostolic Churches because there is no diversity of doctrine: this is the witness of truth . . . Grant, then [for the sake of argument], that all have erred; that the Apostle was mistaken in bearing witness; that the Holy Spirit had no such consideration for any one Church to lead it into truth, although He was sent for that purpose by Christ [Jn. 14:26], who had asked the Father to make Him the Teacher of truth [Jn. 15:26]; that the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ * neglected His office, and permitted the Churches for a time to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself had preached through the Apostles: now, is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into a unity of [a doctrinally erroneous] faith?" (The Prescription Against Heretics [ca. 200 AD]).

1. Eusebius:

“Which things being shortly propounded to the Galatians, out of their own epistle, namely, the saving faith which gives us the mystical regeneration in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and besides the divine (traditions) which are written, the Catholic Church of God, which is from one end of the earth to the other, seals to us the testimonies of Scripture, by tradition which is not written” (Against Marcellus [before 340 AD]).

1. Aphraates the Persian Sage:

“These things I have written according to what I have attained to. But if anyone shall read these discourses, and find words that do not agree with his thought, he ought not to scorn them; because whatsoever is written in these chapters was not written according to the thought of one man, nor for the persuasion of one reader; but according to the thought of all the Church, and for the persuasion of all faith” (Demonstrations [336-345 AD]).

1. St. Ephraim:

“Be firmly persuaded of this, not as an opinion, but as truth, that whatsoever has been transmitted, whether in writing only or by word of mouth – and by consequence the divine names and appellations – is directed to this end, that we may have life, and have it more abundantly” (Against Heresies [before 373 AD]).

1. St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

“But in learning the Faith and professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of the Scriptures” (Catechetical Lectures [ca. 350 AD]).

1. St. Athanasius:

“But after him * and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as traditions of men, err*, because they do not rightly know them nor their power” (Festal Letters [emphasis added]).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called” (Ad Serapion [360 AD]).

1. St. Hilary of Poitiers:

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand” (On Matthew, Homily 13:1 [353-355 AD]).

1. St. Pacian of Barcelona:

“What is the authority derived from apostolic men, from the priests, from the most blessed martyr and doctor, Cyprian, of slight weight with us? . . . What say you to the numerous priests on this same side, whom one and the same peace firmly united, throughout the whole world . . . What to so many aged bishops, and martyrs, and confessors? Say, if they were not authorities enough for taking this name [Catholic], are we sufficient for rejecting it? And shall the fathers rather follow our authority; and the antiquity of saints give way to be amended [by us]; and times, grown rank with vice, pluck out the gray hairs of apostolic age? And yet, my brother, fret not yourself: Christian is my name, but Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart . . . When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name” (To the Novationist Sympronian, Epistle 1 [375-392 AD]).

con’t…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Basil the Great:

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force” (The Holy Spirit [375 AD]).

“The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of ‘sound doctrine’ is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by leveling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors – of course bona fide debtors – they clamor for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers” (id.).

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency” (Epistle to the Canonicae, 52:1 [370 AD]).

1. St. Gregory Nazianzen:

“I desire to know what is this fashion of innovation in things concerning the Church . . . But since our faith has been proclaimed, both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how comes it that some make such attempts, and that others keep silence?” (To Cledonius, Epistle 101 [382 AD]).

1. St. Gregory of Nyssa:

“[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the Apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of their arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense” (Against Eunomius, 4:6 [380-384 AD]).

1. St. Epiphanius of Salamis:

“It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [inter 374/377 AD]).

1. Pope St. Damasus I:

“We believe that we, priests of God, by whom it is right for the rest to be instructed, are holding and teaching our people the Holy Creed which was founded on the teaching of the Apostles, and in no way departs from the definition of the Fathers” (Synodal Act of Damasus, Epistle I [371 AD]).

1. St. John Chrysostom:

“‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten also is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians [inter 398-404 AD]).

1. St. Ambrose of Milan:

“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth” (Commentary on Psalm 118, 19 [387-388 AD]).

1. St. Augustine:

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says: ‘I do not believe?’ Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” [397 AD]).

“I believe that this practice [that individuals baptized in the name of the Trinity by schismatics or heretics are not to be re-baptized upon conversion to the Catholic Church] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors *, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves” (Baptism [400 AD]).

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority” (id.).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis [inter 401-415 AD]).

“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true” (Sermons, 117:6 [inter 391-430]).

“It is not to be doubted that the dead are aided by prayers of holy church, and by the salutary sacrifice *, and by the alms, which are offered for their spirits; that the Lord may deal with them more mercifully than their sins have deserved. For this, which has been handed down by the Fathers, the universal church observes” (Sermons, 172 [inter 391-430].

“We read in the book of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the universal Church which is clear on this point * is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at His altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care that Should be Taken of the Dead [421 AD]).

con’t…***

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Jerome:

“Don’t you know that laying on hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Church? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of the Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of command” (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians [ca. 379 AD]).

“My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the Catholic Church” (To Minervius and Alexander, Epistle 119 [406 AD]).

1. Capreolus of Carthage:

“Again, as an example to posterity – that what is now defined relative to Catholic faith may be for ever firmly received, those matters which have already been defined by the Fathers, must be preserved inviolate. Since whoso would fain that what he has defined concerning the right ordering of faith should continue for ever, must needs confirm his sentiments, not by his private authority, but also by the judgment of the more ancient [Fathers]; so that, in this manner, proving that what he asserts is, both by the decisions of the ancient and of the moderns, the alone truth of the Catholic Church – a truth descending from the past ages even to the present, or our days, in simple purity and invincible authority” (To the Council of Ephesus [431 AD]).

1. St. Cyril of Alexandria:

“[H]ave a faith that corresponds with the divine Scriptures, and with the tradition of our holy fathers” (Festal Letters, Homily 8 [inter 414-442 AD]).

“Those things are orthodox and irreprehensible which agree with the divine writings and with the faith which has been set down by our holy fathers” (Ad Theognos [before 444 AD]).

1. St. Vincent of Lerins:

“But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church” (The Notebooks [ca. 434 AD]).

“He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times” (id.).

“[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and . . . make a shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers” (id.).

1. Theodoret of Cyr:

“We are guarding the dogmatic teaching of the Apostles intact even to the present time . . . Handing this tradition down to us are not only the Apostles and the prophets, but also those whose writings interpret their books, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the other lights of the ecumene, and before these the holy Fathers gathered in [the First Council of] Nicaea [in 325 AD], whose confession of faith we guard inviolate as a paternal inheritance” (Letter of Theodoret to Florentius [ca. 440-460? AD]).

“His [Nestorius] first attempt at innovation was, that the holy Virgin, who bore the Word of God, who took flesh from her, ought not to be confessed to be the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ; though of old, yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to apostolic tradition, that [she was] the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artiface and observation unknown to any one before him” (Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 12 [ca. 453 AD]).

“They [the Church Fathers] are successors of the divine apostles; some even of those apostles were privileged to hear the holy voice and see the goodly sight. The majority of them too were adorned with the crown of martyrdom. Does it seem right for you to wag the tongue of blasphemy against them?” (Eranistes, 1 [447/451 AD]).

1. St. Thomas Aquinas:

“The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q.5, Art. 3 [1265-1274 AD]).

 

[WFS5801]

How about Irenaeus on:
The Self-Interpreting Nature of Scripture

Irenaeus (130-c. 200)

For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god, but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god, weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less important question. For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and clear.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Chapter X.—Perverse interpretations of Scripture…)

Again, taken completely out of context and has nothing to do with the Tradition of the Church. St. Irenaeus is writing against the practice of misusing Scripture to push forward heretical writings. He’s not even talking about Tradition. The fact that so many people interpret the Bible differently proves that the Scripture is not self-explanatory. It was clear to the Church because they had the oral teaching of the Apostles to draw from.

The full section 1 of the passage in context (which is taken from Book 2, Chapter 10 of Against Heresies.

1. It is therefore in the highest degree irrational, that we should take no account of Him who is truly God, and who receives testimony from all, while we inquire whether there is above Him that [other being] who really has no existence, and has never been proclaimed by any one. For that nothing has been clearly spoken regarding Him, they themselves furnish testimony; for since they, with wretched success, transfer to that being who has been conceived of by them, those parables [of Scripture] which, whatever the form in which they have been spoken, are sought after [for this purpose], it is manifest that they now generate another [god], who was never previously sought after. For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god, but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god, weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less important question. For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and clear.

As you can see here (in context), St. Irenaeus is countering heretics who misuse Scripture to push forward their agenda – he is not contrasting Scripture to Tradition (that handed down by the Apostles).

(Continued)

 

[WFS5801]

(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.)

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 proper 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.

1. For consider, all you who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God, who has a real existence, but whom you style the Demiurge; since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words, — when you style this very Being the fruit of defect, and the offspring of ignorance, and describe Him as being ignorant of those things which are above Him, with the various other allegations which you make regarding Him—consider the terrible blasphemy [you are thus guilty of] against Him who truly is God…

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.

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.

 

[guanophore]

Again, taken completely out of context and has nothing to do with …

Unfortunately, this is how many of our separated brethren have been taught to read Sacred Literature. They have also been misled into thinking that the faith is to be extracted from the bible, rather than handed down from those who were entrusted with it.

In that extraction, they come out with some very strange ideas.

 

[WFS5801]

(continued)

Augustine

(Tractates on John, Tractate 49, Paragraph 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.l.html

Note what was recorded was sufficient for salvation

But you should note that this is basically a sermon on the passage in St. John’s Gospel, not a book of doctrine.

St. Augustine wrote the following in his Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Chapter 5.

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as 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 Manichæus, how can I but consent?
…
It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me.

So we see that St. Augustine’s belief in the Gospel came from the authority of the Church, not the other way around.

I would like to see one instance where the Fathers of the Church stated that they did not accept the Tradition (those teachings handed down by the Apostles). All I see, so far, are passages taken out of context where the Catholic Fathers are using the Scriptures to oppose the teachings of heretics – not against the Traditions of the Church that were handed down by Apostles.

Find these passages where Tradition is attacked by the Fathers of the Church, if they exist. I don’t think they do.

 

[WFS5801]

Scripture Precedes The Church

It is often the contention of Roman Catholic apologists that the Church should be believed because she predates the Scriptures and is the ‘principle of causality’ behind the Scriptures. But as noted earlier, God is the primary author or originator of sacred Scripture, and as such, he himself, not the Church, is the ‘principle of causality’ behind it. The Apostle Peter states that Scripture originated, not with the Church, but that’holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is nonsense to say that the Church has authority because she is the more ancient. God’s word is eternal. The truth revealed through Christ and the apostles is the same truth revealed in the Old Testament.
David T. King Vol I Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith p. 130ff

But the fact is that the Catholic Church existed and was governed and grew before any bit of the New Testament was ever written. The New Testament, as we know it, was not canonized until 400 years later. Whether the Bible is eternal or not, is beside the point – it was on the Church’s authority that the New Testament was collected, canonized and published. God worked through the Church. How did a Christian become a Christian before the New Testament was written? By listening to the Church, the ground and pillar of faith.

Nowhere can you, or any one else, show that the Church Fathers believed in sola scriptura. It’s clear when you read their writing that they believed in both the Tradition (the teachings of the Apostles handed down) and the Scripture (what the Apostles wrote to specific churches). Both were of equal value. Both had the same source.

 

[WFS5801]

Unfortunately, this is how many of our separated brethren have been taught to read Sacred Literature. They have also been misled into thinking that the faith is to be extracted from the bible, rather than handed down from those who were entrusted with it.

In that extraction, they come out with some very strange ideas.

Not only that, but when we used to have Bible Study, we argued one verse against another, thinking (I suppose) that every verse was its own complete book and totally disregarding the context of the Scripture. I see the same thing in these quotes by the Fathers. These quotes (the ones supposedly somehow opposing Tradition) are all either arguments from Scripture against heretics or sermons (or “devotionals”) on specific Scriptures. Not one of them attacks the weight of Tradition in the Catholic Church, or says that Tradition (teaching handed down through the Apostles) is inferior to Scripture. As a matter of fact, when the Fathers write specifically about Tradition and Scripture, it is to say they are on equal footing. What they also fail to mention is that the Church understand the true teachings of Scripture partly because of the Traditions handed down through the Apostles.

 

[Shannon9791]

Parker,
I would like to contribute, but I can’t find a succinct definition of how you define “Sola Scriptura”. I don’t want to claim that I agree with you until I am more informed of what you believe regarding this important topic.

I think this statement says a lot. There is not one across the boarad usage of “Sola Scriptura” so basically what it boils down to is what do “I” think it means. Algo, if your definition of SS disagrees with Parker’s definition of SS, how can you tell who is right and who is wrong?

 

[JRKH]

Not only that, but when we used to have Bible Study, we argued one verse against another, thinking (I suppose) that every verse was its own complete book and totally disregarding the context of the Scripture. I see the same thing in these quotes by the Fathers. These quotes (the ones supposedly somehow opposing Tradition) are all either arguments from Scripture against heretics or sermons (or “devotionals”) on specific Scriptures. Not one of them attacks the weight of Tradition in the Catholic Church, or says that Tradition (teaching handed down through the Apostles) is inferior to Scripture. As a matter of fact, when the Fathers write specifically about Tradition and Scripture, it is to say they are on equal footing. What they also fail to mention is that the Church understand the true teachings of Scripture partly because of the Traditions handed down through the Apostles.

Excellent Post The voice of reason!!

This thread has developed in the same way that a thread on faith/works generally develops. Various verses and passages are tossed back and forth in an effort to support a view or undermine the opposition.

But - everyone - here is the bottom line…If text exists that supports both of the things being debated (scripture/tradition or faith/works or …) then both things must be seen as necessary components of the whole

I know that our protestant brothers get frustrated with us sometimes because we (cradle catholics) don’t understand SS in the same manner, or to the same depth as they do. But I think that we Catholics can say the same thing about the protestant understanding of “Tradition”.
Tradition is not simply limited to ideas or sayings or doctrines or beliefs that are entirely seperate from written scripture. Tradition involves ancient beliefs and understandings and the continuity of the Apostolic teachings handed down through succession. In the Catholic Tradition this is called, in it’s entirety, the “Deposit of Faith”.

On the one hand a protestant can say - “The Assumption is not in the Bible” and this is true. It is based on Ancient Oral and extrabiblical tradition along with certain “hints” in the bible…
On the Other hand, the Eucharist IS in the Bible, and the consistant understanding of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence has not changed in nearly 2 millenia in the ancient Churches. Neither Church - East or West - considers the Eucharist to be anything other than the real and substantial presence of Christ.
Yet the Protestant feels free to reject this clear and consistant understanding, this “Tradition”, of two thousand years and redefine the “Lords supper” as a “purely symbolic rememberance”.

Tradition is a totality that involves both the written text AND the consistant teachings - understandings - handed down through Holy Mother Church - the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Sorry for the ramble…

I now return you to the regularly scheduled program already in progress…

"Christians Casting a Cacophony of Quotes"



Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

The burden of proof lies on the Church to prove that ‘Sacred Tradition’ and ‘Oral Tradition’ are one and the same.

That’s fair. Are you willing to read the material we offer?

Articles on the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition

The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510bt.asp

What Is The Relationship Between Scripture And Tradition?
By Mark P. Shea
chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_9.htm

Scripture And Tradition
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Sacred Scripture Depends on Sacred Tradition
by Stephen N. Filippo
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea3.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scripture Precedes The Church

It is often the contention of Roman Catholic apologists that the Church should be believed because she predates the Scriptures and is the ‘principle of causality’ behind the Scriptures. But as noted earlier, God is the primary author or originator of sacred Scripture, and as such, he himself, not the Church, is the ‘principle of causality’ behind it. The Apostle Peter states that Scripture originated, not with the Church, but that’holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is nonsense to say that the Church has authority because she is the more ancient. God’s word is eternal. The truth revealed through Christ and the apostles is the same truth revealed in the Old Testament.
David T. King Vol I Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith p. 130ff

Okay. So, God established the Church first…then after that Church had been up and running smoothly for awhile, He inspired some of the Church’s members to write down some historical accounts of the beginnings along with some letters of advice - just as Peter said.

Much later, after all that had sunk in, God assisted the Church in the process of gathering up and sorting through all these writings in order to standardize the collections that all the different local bodies of believers were using.

Much, much later, after the Church had been teaching from its own living memory and from the collected books, God assisted Guttenburg in developing the printing press so that everyone could follow along with what the Church was teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you tell us anything that Jesus told the Apostles in that 40 days that has not been traditioned (handed down} to us in the Holy Scriptures?

I’ll mull that over.

However, there are Traditions which you, as a Protestant, accept as binding even though they were not taught during that period so the time restriction you have imposed is a bit arbitrary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed, as well as :

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466)
Commenting on 2 Thess. 2:15:
Keep as the norm of doctrine the words offered you by us, which we preached to you when present and wrote when absent.
Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 130.

Greek text:
Ἔχετε κανόνα διδασκαλίας τοὺς παρʼ ἡμῶν ἡμῖν προσενεχθέντας λόγους, οὕς καὶ παρόντες ἡμῖν ἐκηρύξαμεν, καὶ ἀπόντες ἐγράψαμεν. Interpretatio Epistolae ΙI ad Thessalonicenses, Caput II, v. 15, PG 82:668-669.

Oral preaching and written teaching are presented as equals in the quote above. Both are to be kept.

 

[Algo1]

Originally Posted by Algo1
Indeed, as well as :

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466)
Commenting on 2 Thess. 2:15:
Keep as the norm of doctrine the words offered you by us, which we preached to you when present and wrote when absent.
Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 130.

Greek text:
Ἔχετε κανόνα διδασκαλίας τοὺς παρʼ ἡμῶν ἡμῖν προσενεχθέντας λόγους, οὕς καὶ παρόντες ἡμῖν ἐκηρύξαμεν, καὶ ἀπόντες ἐγράψαμεν. Interpretatio Epistolae ΙI ad Thessalonicenses, Caput II, v. 15, PG 82:668-669.

Oral preaching and written teaching are presented as equals in the quote above. Both are to be kept.

Randy, are you claiming that the ‘content’ or ‘substance’ of what Paul delivered to the Thessalonians ‘orally’ was somehow different than that which he delivered ‘in writing’?

"In Galatians 1:14, Paul makes reference to ‘the traditions of my fathers’ and in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men’. Charles Hodge notes that Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 are references ‘to what is human and untrustworthy…and frequently in the gospels of the elders.’

Only in the remaining three instances (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), where the noun (paradosis) appears, do we find binding Christian tradition in the New Testament. ** In each of these, the apostle makes reference to authoritative apostolic tradition which he had ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6).**
In all three cases, ** the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.**
These traditions were not something awaiting ** the future development of a living voice** because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that ‘tradition’ in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

Why? Because the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in them.

The verbs used to describe the relationship of these traditions to Christian observance make no sense unless they had already been identified and defined. Every reference to ‘tradition’ in these passages has to do with doctrinal or moral rules already delivered."
David T. King p.112 Vol.I Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.

 

[guanophore]

are you claiming that the 'content' or 'substance' of what Paul delivered to the Thessalonians 'orally' was somehow different than that which he delivered 'in writing'?

Not “different” since they both come from the same Source. Complimentary. Scripture is to be understood through the lens of Sacred Tradition (the Teaching of the Apostles)

"In Galatians 1:14, Paul makes reference to ‘the traditions of my fathers’ and in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men’. Charles Hodge notes that Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 are references ‘to what is human and untrustworthy…and frequently in the gospels of the elders.’

Yes.

Only in the remaining three instances (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), where the noun (paradosis) appears, do we find binding Christian tradition in the New Testament. ** In each of these, the apostle makes reference to authoritative apostolic tradition which he had** ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6).
In all three cases, ** the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.**
These traditions were not something awaiting ** the future development of a living voice** because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

Yes! This is very Catholic. What we do NOT have is any commandment that the paradosis becomes invalid at any point, or that we are at liberty to abandon it, as was done during the Reformation. Departure from the paradosis causes “a different gospel” than what was delivered.

 This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that 'tradition' in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

I think you have a misunderstanding about Sacred Tradition and doctrinal development. Sacred Tradition cannot be changed, It is part of the “once for all” deposit of faith that was delivered to the Church. Doctrinal development is understanding and applying those teachings of Jesus. For example, the Trinity is an example of doctrinal development. It is a term not found in the NT, but coined two centuries later to defeat heresies that were rampant. However, none of us would say that it was an “new doctrine”, as it is from the once for all deposit of faith.

Why? Because the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in them.

Yes, and did not stop doing so just because the NT was canonized.

The verbs used to describe the relationship of these traditions to Christian observance make no sense unless they had already been identified and defined. Every reference to 'tradition' in these passages has to do with doctrinal or moral rules already delivered."

Yes, however, some of the "rules’ can change (not the moral ones, of course) but how disciplines are practiced. Sacred Tradition cannot change. Customs (traditions with a small “T” can).

 

[paul_c]

Algo,

It is completely true that the New testament authors wrote their works to explain the faith and the truth about Jesus Christ. The Church officially defined the Bible Canon in 382 AD both as a teaching and liturgical tool when Pope St. Damasus standardized it and commissioned St Jerome to translate all the books into Latin (the vulgate).

That said, here are the main objections about Sola Scriptura:

1. It does not contain all truth. There is much more in the collective memories of the Church. These include how, when and who can say mass and how to carry out the sacraments and what is required. It includes how Jesus and Mary looked and what they wore. It includes the name of the good thief (St. Dismas). Most importantly, it includes how to understand scripture.
2. Scripture itself says shows that without the interpretitive power of the church, scripture can and will be twisted. Indeed, Satan twists scripture in his temptation of Jesus (matthew 4) and in 2Peter 3, Peter says:

15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures

.

Don’t be confused when the Church Fathers speak of scripture. They all acknowledge that scripture is from God and can not be contradicted by tradition. But they also understand that it can be augmented by tradition - in fact, Scripture is a subset of Tradition and as such will never contradict it.