F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Your first quote from St. Augustine only states that disputations cause the Church to greater refine her teachings. I notice that St. Augustine refers to “heretics.” If the doctrines that the heretics denied were not taught in their essence at the time of their heresy (having been only taught as part of the Faith at the ecumenical councils, which provided their condemnation) then there could have been no condemnation of the beliefs of the heretics before the ecumenical councils, yet we see this repeatedly, in the case of Marcion (whom I mentioned earlier) and the arch-heresiarch, Arius. If the doctrine wasn’t known enough to be taught, no serious condemnation could have been provided. Rather, confusion and pleas for obedience for the sake of obedience would have been provided. You’ve yet to explain why the Church’s historical responses to heresy reflect a Church where doctrine is known and taught at all times instead of a Church gradually progressing to full awareness of her Faith.
And the second quote from St. Augustine reveals a further defense of the Orthodox position. Notice that St. Augustine says that the rebellion of heretics forces the Church to “defend” her teachings. Common sense dictates that only something that is known can be defended. I’m curious as to how this strengthens your case that the beliefs of the Fathers don’t have to be the beliefs of the present Church.
Your quote from St. Vincent of Lerins, which I briefly eluded to above, adds further precision to the Orthodox argument. As you observe, St. Vincent says that progress can occur, but no alteration of the faith can occur. Even the most casual observer of our discussion can see that this affirmation of no alteration to the faith reflects the position I’ve stated and defended, while your position stated so concisely a few posts back as saying, “Finally, it is erroneous to suggest that what is believed today must match exactly that which was believed by the fathers”, reveals a different position, as the process of current belief not approximating past belief involves, to some degree, an alteration of the ancient faith, even if only be addition of new beliefs. St. Vincent goes on to state the difference between “progress” and “alteration.” While this distinction stated alone would be ambiguous, the further clarifications of St. Vincent remove all possible doubt as to his meaning. Our saint goes on to say that man’s intelligence, wisdom and spiritual growth may increase, but that this progress only occurs in the same doctrine that retains its same meaning. I think it is evident that we are dealing here with a saint here who is unaware of the practice of finding new doctrines (even if new in a relative sense) in the deposit of Faith. If you were to argue that St. Vincent’s mention of the progress being “latent” in the Church is confirmation of your teaching of the development of doctrine (as opposed to only the form of doctrines), it is essential that you read this in light of the entire quote you posted, which clearly affirmed that progress is made within the same doctrine and meaning the faith has always possessed (thus causing the latent progress to refer to the exterior progression of the teaching not the essential belief, itself), which is another way of saying that what is believed today must match exactly what was believed by the Fathers and which you unfortunately denied.
I will close with another quote from St. Irenaeus, which provides even greater clarity to the Orthodox case:
“Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the
And the second quote from St. Augustine reveals a further defense of the Orthodox position. Notice that St. Augustine says that the rebellion of heretics forces the Church to “defend” her teachings. Common sense dictates that only something that is known can be defended. I’m curious as to how this strengthens your case that the beliefs of the Fathers don’t have to be the beliefs of the present Church.
Your quote from St. Vincent of Lerins, which I briefly eluded to above, adds further precision to the Orthodox argument. As you observe, St. Vincent says that progress can occur, but no alteration of the faith can occur. Even the most casual observer of our discussion can see that this affirmation of no alteration to the faith reflects the position I’ve stated and defended, while your position stated so concisely a few posts back as saying, “Finally, it is erroneous to suggest that what is believed today must match exactly that which was believed by the fathers”, reveals a different position, as the process of current belief not approximating past belief involves, to some degree, an alteration of the ancient faith, even if only be addition of new beliefs. St. Vincent goes on to state the difference between “progress” and “alteration.” While this distinction stated alone would be ambiguous, the further clarifications of St. Vincent remove all possible doubt as to his meaning. Our saint goes on to say that man’s intelligence, wisdom and spiritual growth may increase, but that this progress only occurs in the same doctrine that retains its same meaning. I think it is evident that we are dealing here with a saint here who is unaware of the practice of finding new doctrines (even if new in a relative sense) in the deposit of Faith. If you were to argue that St. Vincent’s mention of the progress being “latent” in the Church is confirmation of your teaching of the development of doctrine (as opposed to only the form of doctrines), it is essential that you read this in light of the entire quote you posted, which clearly affirmed that progress is made within the same doctrine and meaning the faith has always possessed (thus causing the latent progress to refer to the exterior progression of the teaching not the essential belief, itself), which is another way of saying that what is believed today must match exactly what was believed by the Fathers and which you unfortunately denied.
I will close with another quote from St. Irenaeus, which provides even greater clarity to the Orthodox case:
“Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the
way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body
” – St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5: Chapter 20, 1.
As you can see, the heretics in St. Irenaeus’ discourse are condemned primarily because they establish their teachings after that of the apostles, thus causing us to conclude that the apostles teaching was such that it was taught and passed on in such fashion as to perpetually enable the Church to determine heresy from truth based on their teaching. This is an affirmation that renders moot any affirmation that the apostles’ teaching and manner of doctrinal transmission left open the possibility of drawing from the deposit of Faith teachings, hitherto unknown at least in their fullness. In fact, if this were the manner of transmitting doctrine, the heretic would have to be treated with respect since he may be only a rather over-eager “developer of doctrine” – a position that stands condemned on its own inability to conform to the writings of the Holy Fathers, including the one above.
God bless,
Adam
As you can see, the heretics in St. Irenaeus’ discourse are condemned primarily because they establish their teachings after that of the apostles, thus causing us to conclude that the apostles teaching was such that it was taught and passed on in such fashion as to perpetually enable the Church to determine heresy from truth based on their teaching. This is an affirmation that renders moot any affirmation that the apostles’ teaching and manner of doctrinal transmission left open the possibility of drawing from the deposit of Faith teachings, hitherto unknown at least in their fullness. In fact, if this were the manner of transmitting doctrine, the heretic would have to be treated with respect since he may be only a rather over-eager “developer of doctrine” – a position that stands condemned on its own inability to conform to the writings of the Holy Fathers, including the one above.
God bless,
Adam
Are you claiming it did not have a bishop? Are you stating that all his statements in his other letters regarding the unity of the bishop and his Church somehow no longer applies to the See of Rome?
