Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[Algo1]

Perhaps you misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallibility. It has nothing to do with the Pope himself having some sort of God-like powers. Papal infallibility simply means that Providence will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in a matter of religion. It is all about God protecting His Church from falling into error, as He explicitly promised in Matthew 16:18 when He said that He would build His Church on Peter and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.

Adrian Fortescue writes the following on the doctrine of papal infallibility, which may be helpful here:

“It is as well to state again plainly what it does mean. It does not mean any sort of inspiration given to the Pope. It does not mean that he will always know or understand more about our religion than anyone else. A Pope might be quite ignorant and a very poor theologian. He may make a mistake as a private theologian; only God will take care that he does not commit the whole Church to it. Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all. It does not mean that the Pope will always give the wisest or best decision or that what he says will always be well advised or opportune. He may not speak at all; he may preserve a regrettable silence, just when it would be greatly to the good of the Church if he did speak. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church [e.g., during the Pelagian controversy], then what he says will not be false. It may be inadequate. When does the Pope so speak as to commit the whole Church? This is what we mean by a decision ex cathedra. The First Vatican Council defined that the Pope’s decisions ex cathedra cannot be false. It say nothing about any other kind of papal pronouncement; it explains an ‘ex cathedra’ statement as (1) a definition, (2) of dogma on faith or morals that is (3) binding on the whole Church . . .

“Understood so, papal infallibility is so obvious a consequence of the primacy that it would seem hardly worth special attention, were it not that some people about 1870 were not yet clear on this point. Put together three ideas: first, that the Pope is the last court of appeal in matters of faith no less than in those of discipline; second, that the decisions of the final court must be accepted as final; and third, that God cannot allow his whole Church to fall into error – and you have the whole of papal infallibility at once” (The Early Papacy, 47-48).

My point regarding Augustine and infallibility is that he has used the term describing GOD and describing Scripture.

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 89, § 4.
LATIN TEXT: Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest.
See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Augustine (354-430): But human authority is very often deceiving.
FC, Vol. 5, Saint Augustine On Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil, Book 2, Chapter 9, §27 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1948), p. 305.
LATIN TEXT Humana vero auctoritas plerumque fallit. De Ordine, Liber Secundus, Caput IX, §27, PL 32:1008.

I have not found him describing either the Pope or the Church as “Infallible”
Note his use of the Latin words ‘falli and fallit’ to mean ‘fallible’ or ‘deceiving’.
continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:

Augustine (354-430):Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass. And if ** the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understood that He had made nothing previously,—for if He had made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said to have been made “in the beginning,”—then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time,—after that which is past, before that which is future. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6.
Latin Text Cum igitur Deus, in cujus aeternitate nulla est omnino mutatio, creator sit temporum et ordinator, quomodo dicatur post temporum spatia mundum creasse, non video; nisi dicatur ante mundum jam aliquam fuisse creaturam, cujus motibus tempora currerent. Porro si ** Litterae sacrae maximeque veraces ita dicunt, in principio fecisse Deum coelum et terram, ut nihil antea fecisse intelligatur, quia hoc potius in principio fecisse diceretur, si quid fecisset ante caetera cuncta quae fecit; procul dubio non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum tempore. Quod enim fit in tempore, et post aliquod fit, et ante aliquod tempus; post id quod praeteritum est, ante id quod futurum est: De Civitate Dei, Liber Undecimus, Caput VI, PL 41:321-322.

Augustine (354-430): For since man is most properly understood (or, if that cannot be, then, at least, believed) to be made in God’s image, no doubt it is that part of him by which he rises above those lower parts he has in common with the beasts, which brings him nearer to the Supreme. But since the mind itself, though naturally capable of reason and intelligence is disabled by besotting and inveterate vices not merely from delighting and abiding in, but even from tolerating His unchangeable light, until it has been gradually healed, and renewed, and made capable of such felicity, it had, in the first place, to be impregnated with faith, and so purified. And that in this faith it might advance the more confidently towards the truth, the truth itself, God, God’s Son, assuming humanity without destroying His divinity, established and founded this faith, that there might be a way for man to man’s God through a God-man. For this is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For it is as man that He is the Mediator and the Way. Since, if the way lieth between him who goes, and the place whither he goes, there is hope of his reaching it; but if there be no way, or if he know not where it is, what boots it to know whither he should go? Now the only way that is ** infallibly secured** against all mistakes, is when the very same person is at once God and man, God our end, man our way. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 2.
Latin Text: Hic est enim mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus. Per hoc enim mediator, per quod homo; per hoc et via. Quoniam si inter eum qui tendit et illud quo tendit, via media est, spes est perveniendi: si autem desit, aut ignoretur qua eundum sit, quid prodest nosse quo eundum sit? Sola est autem adversus omnes errores via munitissima, ut idem ipse sit Deus et homo: quo itur, Deus; qua itur, homo. De Civitate Dei, Liber Undecimus, Caput II, PL 41:318.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:

**Augustine (354-430): ** Let me therefore say in a few words to your Charity, that the presbyter Boniface has not been discovered by me to be guilty of any crime, and that I have never believed, and do not yet believe, any charge brought against him. How, then, could I order his name to be deleted from the roll of presbyters, when filled with alarm by that word of our Lord in the gospel: “With what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged”?533 For, seeing that the dispute which has arisen between him and Spes has by their consent been submitted to divine arbitration in a way which, if you desire it, can be made known to you,534 who am I, that I should presume to anticipate the divine award by deleting or passing over his name? As a bishop, I ought not rashly to suspect him; and as being only a man, I cannot decide infallibly concerning things which are hidden from me. **Even in secular matters, when an appeal has been made to a higher authority, all procedure is sisted while the case awaits the decision from which there is no appeal; because if anything were changed while the matter is depending on his arbitration, this would be an insult to the higher tribunal. And how great the distance between even the highest human authority and the divine! ** NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustin, Letter 77 - To, §2.
Latin Text: Breviter itaque dico Charitati vestrae, Bonifacium presbyterum in nullo crimine apud me fuisse detectum, nequaquam me de illo tale aliquid credidisse vel credere. Quomodo ergo juberem de numero presbyterorum nomen ejus auferri, vehementer terrente Evangelio ubi Dominus ait: In quo judicio judicaveritis, judicabimini Cum enim causa quae inter illum et Spem exorta est, sub divino examine pendeat secundum placitum eorum, quod vobis si volueritis poterit recitari; quis ego sum, ut audeam Dei praevenire sententiam in delendo vel supprimendo ejus nomine, de quo nec suspicari temere mali aliquid episcopus debui, nec dilucide judicare homo de occultis hominum potui, cum in ipsis causis saecularibus, quando ad majorem potestatem refertur arbitrium judicandi, manentibus sicuti erant omnibus rebus, exspectetur illa sententia, unde jam non liceat provocari, ne superiori cognitori fiat injuria, si ejus pendente judicio aliquid fuerit commutatum? Et utique multum interest inter divinam et humanam quamlibet excelsissimam potestatem. Domini Dei nostri misericordia nunquam vos deserat, domini dilectissimi et honorandi fratres. Epistola LXXVII, §2, PL 33:266-267.

Now Guanophore has quoted Augustine describing the Church as

I think you misunderstand Augustine’s attitude about the Catholic Church and her infallibility.

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)–not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her **authority, **inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The **succession of priests **keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL. [CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397.

Since we know that Augustine makes use of the term “Infallible”, you would expect him to use it someplace when describing the church or the Bishop of Rome. It’s absence leaves us with the understanding that his use of “Infallible” regarding GOD and Scripture is all that he believes to be “Infallible”.

 

[guanophore]

My point regarding Augustine and infallibility is that he has used the term describing GOD and describing Scripture.

Yes.

Are you under some misapprehension that Catholics believe infalliblity can occur apart from God and Scripture?

I have not found him describing either the Pope or the Church as “Infallible”

True. However, would you not agree that the Church performed infallible acts in penning and canonizing the NT?

Any action of men who are “carried along by the HS” will be infallible, where actions that are not, will not.

It is great that you are reading your Augustine.

 

[Ignatius33]

Since we know that Augustine makes use of the term “Infallible”, you would expect him to use it someplace when describing the church or the Bishop of Rome. It’s absence leaves us with the understanding that his use of “Infallible” regarding GOD and Scripture is all that he believes to be “Infallible”.

I don’t think I can do anything more on this point. I’ve demonstrated that Augustine believed that the Pope was the final arbiter on matters of faith. The fact that he does not expressly use the word “infallible” in describing papal decisions on matters of faith in no way disproves the doctrine. As I’ve said before, just because something is “implicit” in Scripture or Tradition doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. It is clearly implicit (if not explicit) in Augustine’s passages.

And there can be no question that Augustine holds the Church Herself to be infallible (again, because of Providence – it’s all about God protecting His Church, nothing more):

1. “Unless the Lord dwelt in the Church, as she is now, the most careful speculation would fall into error; but of this Church is said: She is the holy temple of God” (In Ps. IX, no. 12).
2. “God has placed this authority first of all in his Church” (Explanation of the Psalms, Tract 103:8).
3. “It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true” (Sermons, 117:6).
4. “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the traditions of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church” (On the Trinity, 4, 6:10).
5. “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” (Baptism [400 AD]).
6. “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).

 

[Algo1]

Algo,
Clement is writing to the Catholic Church at Corinth. Unlike you, they already understood the Catholic teaching on justification. I am explaining it to you so that you understand the context of Clement’s point and aren’t mislead into thinking that you can get to Heaven based on Faith alone based on an incomplete understanding of what you are reading.

Here is an early example of the “Great Exchange” long before Luther embraced it.

Mathetes to Diognetus: As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us,He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter 9.

And from another early writer:

Chrysostom (349-407): The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.” Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

Chrysostom (349-407): For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

Justification-Sola Fide in the early church (continued):

Chrysostom (349-407): For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b: God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.
Migne’s Latin: Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam, PL 17:185.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23.
** Migne’s Latin:** Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:53.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 65.
**Migne’s Latin: **
Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:

Oecumenius (6th century), commenting on James 2:23:
Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone, since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 33. See PG 119:481.

Bede (672/673-735), commenting on Paul and James: Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul’s words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 31.
**Latin Text:**Quoniam Paulus apostolus praedicans justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, non bene intellectus est ab eis qui sic dictum acceperunt, ut putarent, cum semel in Christum credidissent, etiam si male operarentur, et facinorose flagitioseque viverent, salvos se esse per fidem: locus iste hujus epistolae eumdem sensum Pauli apostoli quomodo sit intelligendus exponit. Ideoque magis Abrahae exemplo utitur, vacuam esse fidem si non bene operetur, quoniam Abrahae exemplo etiam Paulus usus est, ut probaret justificari hominem sine operibus posse. Cum enim bona opera commemorat Abrahae, quae ejus fidem comitata sunt, satis ostendit apostolum Paulum, non ita per Abraham docere justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, ut si quis crediderit, non ad eum pertineat bene operari, sed ad hoc potius, ut nemo arbitretur meritis priorum bonorum operum se pervenisse ad donum justificationis quae est in fide. Super Divi Jacobi Epistolam, Caput II, PL 93:22.

B]Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 9:

This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies.
Migne’s Latin: Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat. Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, PL 9:961.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been, δεδικαιωμένον) justified solely by faith in Christ. See Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 505.
Greek Text: O kaucw,menoj evn Ku,ri,w| kauca,sqw( le,gw o[ti Cristo.j hmi/n evgenh,qh sofi,a avpo. Qeou/( dikaiosu,nh te kai. agiasmo.j kai. avpolu,trwsij\ Ina kaqw.j ge,graptai( O kaucw,menoj( evn Ku,ri,w| kauca,sqw) Au[th ga.r dh. h telei,a kai. olo,klhroj kau,chsij evn Qew/|( o[te mh,te evpi. dikaiosu,nh| tij epai,retaith/| eautou/( avll v e;gnw me.n evndeh/ o;nta evauto.n dikaiosu,nhj avlhqou/j( pi,stei de. mo,nh| th/| eivj Cristo.n dedikaiwme,on) Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, §3, PG 31:529. In context, Basil appealed to the example of the Apostle Paul as a regenerate man.

[/quote]

 

[Algo1]

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: God justifies alone by faith.
Ignorantes enim justitiam Dei, et suam quaerentes statuere: justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti. Ignorantes quod Deus ex sola fide justificat et justos se ex legis operibus, quam non custodierunt, esse putantes: noluerunt se remissioni subjicere peccatorum, ne peccatores fuisse viderentur, sicut scriptum est: Pharisaei autem spernentes consilium Dei in semetipsis, noluerunt baptizari baptismo Joannis. Item quia sacrificia legis, et caetera, quae umbra erant veritatis, quae per Christum perfici habebant, praesentia Christi cessaverunt: cui credere noluerunt: In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.

Hilary on Matthew 9: "This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies." Or see the translation in Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: A Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, 4 Volumes, trans. and ed. John Henry Cardinal Newman (London: The Saint Austin Press, reprinted 1997), which reads: “the sins of his soul which the Law could not remit are remitted him; for faith only justifies.
Migne Latin: Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat. Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, Caput VIII, PL 9:961

Thomas Aquinas: The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. **Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,” as is said in Romans (3:25). ** Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present
Therefore, he says significantly, that it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ, because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ.. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galations, trans. F. R. Larcher, O.P. (Albany: Magi Books, Inc., 1966), Chapter 2, Lecture 4, (Gal. 2:15-16), pp. 54-55.

end.

 

[Philthy]

Since we know that Augustine makes use of the term “Infallible”, you would expect him to use it someplace when describing the church or the Bishop of Rome. It’s absence leaves us with the understanding that his use of “Infallible” regarding GOD and Scripture is all that he believes to be “Infallible”.

Yes and no. It is equally true that you would expect him to distinguish people as being incapable of infallibility, but we don’t find that either. And just for the record, your quote here from Augustine:

I cannot decide infallibly concerning things which are hidden from me.

is conditional: his infallibility is conditioned upon things “which are hidden from” him. To my open mind, these leaves the distinct impression that sometimes things are “revealed” to him - or other men - which gives them the possibility of being infallible in proclaiming them.

 

[paul_c]

Algo,
Its nice that you are reading the Church Fathers, but you still misunderstand what they are saying. All Catholics believe you are justified (your sines forgiven in Baptism) by Faith Alone. But you , like the Reformers, are mistaken into thinking that this justification is all that is required to get to heaven. Its the first step, but there is more. Once Justified (put in the state of Grace through Baptism), you must actually follow Jesus to enter heaven. This is the danger of sola scriptura and selective reading. With very little effort, you would find eshortations from these save Church fathers that say that you must do the will of God to get to heaven. Why aren’t you quoting this as well? Just as when the Reformers quote scripture, they stay away from the many scriptural passages that show we will be judged based on our works, those that do works of mercy go to heaven, while those that do evil will be condemned to hell. Start with Romans 2 and Matthew 25. If you undertand the full context of Apostolic teaching, you wouldn’t have these problems.

 

[Philthy]

Thomas Aquinas: The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,” as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present
Therefore, he says significantly, that it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ, because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ… St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galations, trans. F. R. Larcher, O.P. (Albany: Magi Books, Inc., 1966), Chapter 2, Lecture 4, (Gal. 2:15-16), pp. 54-55.

IMHO you are mistaken in drawing a parallel between the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide and St Thomas’ comments on justification “by the faith of Christ”. The doctrine of Sola Fide deals with our being saved through OUR faith alone (in Christ alone, BY grace alone) Thomas isn’t addressing that at all as far as I can tell. He seems to be speaking of the faith of Christ, not the faith of the Christian. The fact that he mentions Sacraments “containing a grace that is present” which “can justify” should also give you pause for thought not only regarding the context of the discussion, but regarding how far apart you and St Thomas are - and how Catholic he is. That is just my 2 cents, and I will admit up front that I havent studied this at all.

 

[Philthy]

Algo,
Its nice that you are reading the Church Fathers, but you still misunderstand what they are saying. All Catholics believe you are justified (your sins forgiven in Baptism) by Faith Alone. But you , like the Reformers, are mistaken into thinking that this justification is all that is required to get to heaven.

Kinda sounds like me…I like it!

 

[haparker321]

The reason you have evaded this question is that Calvin had ZERO credibility - nothing to show that he was the true interpreter of God.

But he never claimed any of these statements.

No pedigree, No miracles.

Is that how we determine what the ‘true church’ is? Should we also include the miracles produced by the other religions e.g. Islam and Mormonism?

I’m going to tell you that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus on the Rock of St. Peter

These other religious tell you the same thing, you’re no different.

My point was that God didn’t write the old testament.He spoke to Moses and Moses wrote it down. Likewise He appointed an entire clan to pass down the interpretation of these words.

What class are you thinking of?

The book is only as good as your understanding of it. God communicates through people because they can object if you misinterpret what they say.

A book may be as good as my understanding of it, but my lack of understanding does not make the Scriptures insufficient.

You can never, ever get around the fact that the Bible can be interpreted many ways without an authoritative interpreter.

I’m not disagreeing with this statement; I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the Church has the authority to interpret Scriptures, but here’s the rub: I don’t think she’s infallible. What you want me to acknowledge is that I need an infallible interpreter in order to understand scripture. According to your reasoning, it would be wrong for me to ‘privately interpret’ the most basic scriptural passages (e.g. Genesis 1:1 and John 11:35) because I need someone to interpret the passage for me. Did you dial the magisterial hot-line to get an official translation of this passage?

Parker

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
The reason you have evaded this question is that Calvin had ZERO credibility - nothing to show that he was the true interpreter of God.

Come on Parker. Calvin surely made people believe that his was the true interpretation of the words of Christ. He may not have been as brazen as Joseph Smith, who declared he was the prophet of God, but Calvin nonetheless claimed to have the true interpretation of Christ. Denying this is foolish. He openly said his interpretation was correct and disparaged the interpretations of the Catholic Church, which existed and had been passing down those truths for 1500 years prior to Calvin’s birth.

Quote:
No pedigree, No miracles.

How do YOU determine what the true church is? By whether you agree with the doctrine? That would be just self-serving. We determine that the Catholic Church is the true church both with its pedigree and with the supernatural - starting with the miracles of Christ and the resurrection and continuing on to modern times. As for the miracles of Islam and Mormonism, could they withstand the kinds of outside scutiny that have validated Lourdes and Fatima. Are their saints incorruptible like so many Catholic Saints. (google incorruptible saints) I’ve never seen anything that shows this.

Quote:
I’m going to tell you that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus on the Rock of St. Peter

You know that’s not true. Its very different. Every Religion can trace its roots back to its founder. While the Lutherans can say their founder was Jesus, we all know that it was Martin Luther. It started in the 1517. The Mormons can say their founder was Jesus, but we all know it started with Joseph Smith. It started in the 1830s. By the looks of it, you may be the founder of your own church. It probably started very recently. This is much different than the Catholic Church which can be traced back to St. Peter and the apostles and began at Pentacost, 33AD when the first 3000 converts were baptized

Quote:
My point was that God didn’t write the old testament.He spoke to Moses and Moses wrote it down. Likewise He appointed an entire clan to pass down the interpretation of these words.

The priestly class.

Quote:
The book is only as good as your understanding of it. God communicates through people because they can object if you misinterpret what they say.

Of course it makes it insufficient. If you doesn’t lead you infallibly to the truth about salvation, it is insufficient.

Quote:
You can never, ever get around the fact that the Bible can be interpreted many ways without an authoritative interpreter.

It the church can’t teach infallibly, then you would never know what to believe. If you don’t know what to believe, then its worthless. Jesus commissioned the Apostolic Church to preach the truth and administer the sacraments to all nations and pledged that he would be with it until the end of time. (Matthew 28:18-20) This can be trusted.

You need to interpret scriptures as the Church interprets them. There are plenty of ways to find out what the church teaches - the catechism, the homilies at mass, the sanctioned writings of the church (the church will mark approved sources with an Imprimataur or Nihil obstat). If you diverge, you must humbly learn what you have missed… If you assume that the church is wrong and you are right, you will never learn the truth (and you have a poor assessment of your own capability, insight, and knowledge). Once your understanding truly aligns with the church, you will have no trouble understanding scripture appropriately.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would agree with your position if you can prove that Rome is the true Church, which in this case is an entirely separate subject.

Parker

That can be demonstrated easily enough.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because we’re arguing for different definitions here.

Sacred tradition = Word of God
Oral tradition = teachings that are derived from word of God.

Like I said in the previous post, the church needs to prove that these two definitions are one and the same i.e., the oral aspect of sacred tradition (the ones which are not adequately derived from scripture) count as much of the word of God and sacred tradition.

You’re probably busy writing your book, but do you have time to read up on this subject about which you are so obviously passionate?

If so, the following would be great for starters:

Articles on the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition

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

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION****
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.htm

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

Parker, you’re asking “the Church” to prove something…I hope you’ll honestly take the time to examine these articles to determine whether the proof is there.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not disagreeing with this statement; I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the Church has the authority to interpret Scriptures, but here’s the rub: I don’t think she’s infallible. What you want me to acknowledge is that I need an infallible interpreter in order to understand scripture. According to your reasoning, it would be wrong for me to ‘privately interpret’ the most basic scriptural passages (e.g. Genesis 1:1 and John 11:35) because I need someone to interpret the passage for me.

The Church has always taught a right to private judgment–that the every individual has the right to think on and interpret the Scriptures for himself (this is why the Scriptures are read out loud at Mass, so that even the illiterate can hear them and think about their meaning). The exercise of private judgment is fine and wholesome and to be encouraged by all possible means so long as it is not used to reject those doctrines which have been determined by Christ’s appointed teachers (the Magisterium) to represent the authentic teachings of the Bible.

The Church has historically taught a right to private judgment - but not an absolute right that overthrew the teaching authority which Christ himself set up in his Church by gifting it with official teachers, as the New Testament itself declares (Ephesians 4:11). On any area in which the teaching authority of Christ’s Church has not spoken (which was and is the great majority of areas), private judgment is permitted. It is only when a doctrine which has already been established to be true, such as the Trinity, the full Divinity and humanity of Christ, the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, the efficacy of the sacraments, etc.–that private judgment is limited.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not disagreeing with this statement; I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the Church has the authority to interpret Scriptures, but here’s the rub: I don’t think she’s infallible.

Okay, let’s consider your statement. Suppose for the sake of argument that the Church is not infallible. Does this mean that you should not listen to her? Seriously, Parker, do you ignore the writings and teachings of* everyone* or just those of Catholics?

Let me put this in terms that you, as an Evangelical, may appreciate more fully…I’ll use the Catechism of the Catholic Church for purposes of illustration.

Imagine that you go to church one Sunday and hear a really good sermon by the pastor of your church. You are so impressed with his talk that you call the church office on Monday to get a copy of his notes. You’re in luck…it turns out that the tape ministry department has just completed duplicating the sermon, and you can stop by to get a copy to listen to while you’re driving. Delighted, you drive over and buy a copy and pick up the notes…

The following Sunday, the same thing happens. And the next. And the next. After awhile you have a notebook full of your pastor’s talks and a tape library of all your favorites to match. Yes, sir…you’ve learned a lot from this gifted man of God…you’re really being fed in this church.

The Catechism is sorta like that except that it represents the “Greatest Hits” of the past 2,000 years.

Consequently, when the Catholic Church tells you what a particular passage means or how a specific doctrine is defined, I think you would do well to listen closely to her - even if you don’t agree that she’s infallible. The Church has simply been around longer and thought about these matters more deeply than you have.

 

[EricFilmer]

If on the other hand they suppose the sub-numeration to benefit the Spirit alone, they must be taught that the Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord in precisely the same manner in which the Son is spoken of with the Father…

Please don’t continue this way, Algo. It is against the forum rules foryou to cut and paste without citing your sources, and the sources from whence these passages come are Catholic.

Algo, unless I am mistaken, I believe the material you posted originated from the below people. Of course, as guanophore pointed out, it is your responsibility to give proper references to your sources.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae/First_Part/Question_30

St. Ambrose:
christianbookshelf.org/ambrose/works_and_letters_of_st_ambrose/chapter_xvi_the_father_is.htm

St. Victor of Lerins:
voskrese.info/spl/lerins16.html

At this point I think I need to reiterate the challenge I set before you, and maybe to give it a bit more clarification.

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity teaches the following:

There is one God who exists in the perfect unity of three divine persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Divinity does not exist apart from these specific divine persons, therefore in the one God there are three and only three persons, no more, no less. The substantial nature of divinity shared by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is exactly the same, which means each person is the Eternal Living God. Despite this perfect unity, each divine person is fully distinct from the others. In light of all this, it is taught that the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit, but at the same time the Father is not the Son and is not the Holy Spirit. This same formula is used for each person (i.e., the Son is the Father, the Son is not the Father, etc.).

In terms of the ramifications of this teaching for a Christian…

It is permissible for a Christian to focus his prayer on the Holy Spirit and to worship the Holy Spirit as a person (and therefore not simply understood as a manifestation of God’s power) and moreover as a person distinct from the Father and the Son, but nonetheless their full equals.

As far as I am concerned, Scripture alone is not sufficient to express what is taught in the above red text, and therefore is not sufficient to allow the act of worship described in the above purple text. To fully express the above definition of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the extent that makes the act of worshiping the Holy Spirit (as described) permissible, one needs Sacred Tradition. At best, the Bible implies the Holy Trinity, but such implications cannot support the full weight and ramifications of what is found in the above red & purple text.

Moreover, in declaring “Scripture alone” to be insufficient in attempting to teach the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I do not simply state my opinion. To back this up, I point out that if the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity could be sufficiently demonstrated from Scripture alone then the following heresies would not have gotten any traction (i.e., they each contradict one or more points in the above text in red):

Macedonianism: The Holy Spirit does not share the divine nature of God but acts as a kind of servant (somewhat like the angels). Moreover, the nature shared between the Father and the Son was “similar” but not the “same.”

Monarchianism: God exists as only one person.

Adoptionism (a.k.a., Dynamic Monarchianism): Jesus is simply a man who, during his earthly life, was empowered by God and, in a manner-of-speaking, became God. Therefore, Christ is not eternal.

Modalism (a.k.a., Sabellianism): God exists as only one person, but acts in three “modes”: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Arianism: The Son is not the Eternal Living God, but is rather an entity subordinate to the Father.

Ebionitism: Jesus is the Messiah but not God. He is understood as a righteous man selected by God to be a messianic prophet.

Nestorianism: Jesus was born simply as a man but was later filled with the divine logos and therefore can be considered a kind of incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

(Continued in my next post)