Refuting Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Other Protestant Doctrines

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianStacy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrianStacy

Guest
How does/should a Catholic refute the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant doctrines without running circles around the subjects and remaining faithful to the Doctrine of the Church at the same time?

I’m in the process of being Confirmed (hopefully it will be this Easter) and I find myself surrounded by Protestants and as much as I try to read, I still come short of answers at times…
 
How does/should a Catholic refute the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant doctrines without running circles around the subjects and remaining faithful to the Doctrine of the Church at the same time?

I’m in the process of being Confirmed (hopefully it will be this Easter) and I find myself surrounded by Protestants and as much as I try to read, I still come short of answers at times…
Well, Brian, I may be able to help you by giving you someone who is not in person to bounce your ideas off of. I’m a Reformed Baptist who believes wholeheartedly in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and the more I study the patristics, the more I am confirmed in this belief. It’s much easier to use the arguments that you have with someone that you don’t know, and who is not sitting in front of you.

If you’d like, I can get the ball rolling by asking you why you feel drawn by the Roman Catholic Church. Have you been given the impression that they have all the answers? From my experience (I nearly converted to the RCC before I got married–I sat through many RCIA meetings and had many meetings with local priests), the RCC has nothing more than extra reading material to research in order to come to conclusions that you may or may not have been able to come to on your own by reading the Bible. I tend to think that they don’t expect you to be able to come up with these doctrines on your own (I sure wouldn’t) which is why they have gonve to great lengths to direct people to their other writings. And, yes, I realize that more RC apologists are using the Scriptures to validate their claims, but this is a fairly novel concept that causes them to engage in “private interpretation.”

I have struggled with the desire to find a church that makes things easier by doing the work for me so that I don’t have to struggle when confronted with tough theological/practical issues, but the fact of the matter is, that doesn’t exist. God seems to have given us many means of pointing us in the right direction (Scripture, pastors, fellow Christians, parents who are believers, etc.), but He expects us to be accountable and to spend time in His word in order to determine what He has said. Think about it: Is the creator of logic and language unable to speak clearly to His creatures? Of course. Therefore, the Scriptures are enough to give us the information we need to know what God expects of us.

Here’s a quotation from Irenaeus that is a fine articulation of what I mean. I’ll add a reference at the bottom, but he is saying these things in the context of an explanation of parables and obscure passages of Scripture:

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd.] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers. (ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2.27.1.) Here’s a link, in case you’d like it: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxviii.html
 
How does/should a Catholic refute the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant doctrines without running circles around the subjects and remaining faithful to the Doctrine of the Church at the same time?

I’m in the process of being Confirmed (hopefully it will be this Easter) and I find myself surrounded by Protestants and as much as I try to read, I still come short of answers at times…
Follow the link in my signature, I - using Scripture - demolish Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura on my webpage.

If you have any specific questions, I (and certainly others around here) can try to get very specific answers.
 
Here’s a quotation from Irenaeus that is a fine articulation of what I mean. I’ll add a reference at the bottom, but he is saying these things in the context of an explanation of parables and obscure passages of Scripture:

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd.] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers. (ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2.27.1.) Here’s a link, in case you’d like it: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxviii.html
St Irenaeus was thoroughly Catholic and taught things Protestantism condemns/rejects (eg Apostolic Succession, Papal Supremacy, etc).

If you think you’re going to find Protestantism in the Early Church Fathers, think again.
 
40.png
plain_me:
Well, first and foremost… I have not been “given the impression” that the Catholic Church has all the answers… I am convinced. I am drawn to the Catholic Church because of the Eucharist and the fact that the Catholic Church is ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, and CATHOLIC Church… No other “denomination” of Christianity can state that and have direct proof other than Sola Scriptura, which in fact is a heresy (catholicsource.net/articles/sola1.html) because it goes against the Traditions of the Church and against Scripture itself…

Now, I am the least of those who can debate this issue, which is why I am asking other Catholics who understand and adhere to the teachings of the Church to give advice and instruction.

That’s not to say that I don’t appreciate your posting here, but even when it comes down to the teachings of the Fathers, they are not heretical and that does mean following along with Protestant teachings outside of the Teachings of the Church.

Now let me ask you this… What’s your authority that teaches that the quote that you used is in fact what St. Irenaeus meant by that passage? Or is it just your personal interpretation of what you think he intended to say without using it in full context?
 
What came first, the the Church (members of Christ) or the written New Testament?

Also, Jesus is really clear: Love is first.

We were saved by God’s love sent into the world.

God pours His love into our hearts.

Love is first!
 
How does/should a Catholic refute the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant doctrines without running circles around the subjects and remaining faithful to the Doctrine of the Church at the same time?

I’m in the process of being Confirmed (hopefully it will be this Easter) and I find myself surrounded by Protestants and as much as I try to read, I still come short of answers at times…
Welcome to the one true church!

One need only look at the mishmash of doctrines and beliefs held by the thousands of different denominations that adhere to this doctrie to see falls on the face of it. The simple question to ask those who are adhere to this doctrine is " Sola Scriptura based on whose interpretation of Scripture?"

As Catholics we use a three-pronged test too determine the legitimacy of a doctrine. Is it supported by Scripture? Is it suppported by tradiition? It is supported by the teachings of the magisterium? Sola Scripture is not supported by any of the three.
 
Now let me ask you this… What’s your authority that teaches that the quote that you used is in fact what St. Irenaeus meant by that passage? Or is it just your personal interpretation of what you think he intended to say without using it in full context?
The quote from Irenaeus in no way supports Sola Scriptura. It merely affirrms importance of Scripture to our faith.

Far from supporting Sola Scriptura Irenaeus acknowledges that the final authority is the Church:

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others **which it is easy to obtain from the Church; **since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“**The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, **by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

w*
 
We were saved by God’s love sent into the world.

God pours His love into our hearts.

Love is first!
I agree wholeheartedly…

That’s why we have the Catholic Church… it is the Sacrament established by Jesus Christ to display that Love to the world… it is the physical and visible and tangible Sacrament along with the Holy Eucharist that displays that Love, none of the others can compare… but even then the Holy Spirit holds all Christians as the Body of Christ, Catholics and those separated from the Church. There is a battle though between the Catholic Christians and the Protestant Christians, the Protestants try to convert the Catholics because most of the Protestants believe that the Teachings of the Magisterium are fallible and hell-bent. That is not the case, most are opposed because they do not understand WHY the Church teaches and believes what we believe, you do have some that reject the Church then turn against it, which is just apostasy.

Then again, Protestantism only has two of the Sacraments, as opposed to the seven Sacraments that allow the Church to have the Fullness of Truth.
 
Well, I would simply state:
  1. Sola Scriptura: Impossible. Jesus did not die to leave us a book and an empty cross. He died, and out of His pierced side came the Church by blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism).
  2. Sola Fide: Unreasonable. Faith alone is no path to truth. Truth requires both faith and reason. Plus, if I knew I was saved by faith alone, then there would be no need to have faith to begin with.
 
A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd.] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers. (ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2.27.1.) Here’s a link, in case you’d like it
Nice try, but …
  1. First of all those quotes make no claim about Sola Scriputura. He is explaining the proper method of interpretation of various parables/verses, that heretics were using the to make their case
  2. Second, the whole passage is an argument against Sola Scriptura, because, both St. Irenaeus, and the heretics where arguing from Scripture.
So whose interpretation is right?

Well if You had read further you would have seen the part i’m about to quote, which is an almost a perfect description of non-Catholic/Orthodox christians, I mean protestants and all other “Bible Only” entities.

"…But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself…,
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority…”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.** For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?..”**
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.v.html
 
How does/should a Catholic refute the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant doctrines without running circles around the subjects and remaining faithful to the Doctrine of the Church at the same time?

I’m in the process of being Confirmed (hopefully it will be this Easter) and I find myself surrounded by Protestants and as much as I try to read, I still come short of answers at times…
Brian,
There are many scriptural passages that can be used to refute these ideas without having to go to the Catechism, which protestants would reject anyway. If you search this forum, you should be able to find many threads with such references. One refutation regarding Sola Scriptura that I have not commonly found is to simply use the first and last verses in the Gospel of John:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21:25)
rocketrob
 
How does/should a Catholic refute the Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant doctrines without running circles around the subjects and remaining faithful to the Doctrine of the Church at the same time?

I’m in the process of being Confirmed (hopefully it will be this Easter) and I find myself surrounded by Protestants and as much as I try to read, I still come short of answers at times…
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701btb.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp
 
Sola Scriptura is not scriptural.

2 Thess 2:15 Hold to the traditions I have taught you whether by word or letter.

If they won’t listen to the clear teaching of scripture…

The Church started first, and that is clearly scriptural too. The gospels and epistles came later. Every single epistle assumes an already extant and operational church.

Canon of scripture is established by Tradition. There is no other way. The Jews or the Christians define the various parts of it. By tradition.

Sola Scriptura is not so much wrong as it is impossible.

It was never taught early on as it was obviously impossible. But after 1500 years, a certain rebellious monk and others threw off the tradition and authority that gave them scripture, threw out books right and left and then declared the church had to teach all things from what was left of scripture.
 
There’s a lot of sources that will help. John Martignoni’s site has some of my favorites.
Apologetics - Free Audio Downloads
You can download full-length versions of all of the talks listed below in MP3 format. All of this material is offered free of charge. However, if you can add the Bible Christian Society to the list of charitable organizations that you give to, we would greatly appreciate it! We are a non-profit corporation and all donations are 100% tax-deductible. Without your support, we cannot keep this apostolate running (and it helps to keep food on my family’s table!). A donation of any size would be greatly appreciated and would be put to good use in bringing the truths of the Catholic Faith to as many other folks as possible. Thanks! (You will have an opportunity to donate during or after the download process.)
Talks are 13-15 MB in size and download times will depend on the speed of your Internet connection. Over a dial-up connection, you can download a talk in about an hour.
Apologetics for the Scripturally-Challenged
Code:
 Basic apologetics strategies and techniques.
  **
Apostolic Authority and the Pope**
Code:
 Biblical support for Pope and Apostolic Authority
  **
Baptist Minister Becomes Priest**
Code:
 This is the conversion story of Fr. Gray Bean.
  **
Catholics and the Bible**
Code:
 What the Church teaches regarding Biblical study and interpretation
  **
Debate: Sola Fide (Are We Saved by Faith Alone?)**
Code:
 A debate on salvation between John Martignoni and Dr. James Saxon
  **
Infant Baptism and Original Sin**
Code:
 How to defend the Church's teachings regarding Infant Baptism and Original Sin from the Bible.
  **
Introduction to Apologetics**
Code:
 Prepare to discuss, defend, and share our Faith

  **[Marriage & the Eucharist: The Two Shall Become One](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/marriage_and_the_eucharist.mp3)**

 Explore the parallels between these two sacraments

  **[Mary & the Bible; plus Purgatory & the Bible](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/mary_and_the_bible.mp3)**

 Learn the Biblical foundations to many Marian teachings of the Church

  **[My Conversion Story](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/my_conversion_story.mp3)**

 John's personal journey of Faith

  **[Once Saved, Always Saved?](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/once_saved_always_saved.mp3)**

 Learn how to defend against this false and dangerous doctrine

  **[One Church](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/one_church.mp3)**

 What the Bible says about the one true Church founded by Jesus

  **[Sola Fide - Salvation By Faith Alone?](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/sola_fide.mp3)**

 Using the Bible Alone to refute Salvation by Faith Alone

  **[Sola Scriptura - The Bible Alone?](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/sola_scriptura.mp3)**

 Does the Bible support "The Bible Alone"?

  **[The Communion of Saints](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/communion_of_saints.mp3)**

 Biblical foundations and explanations to common questions

  **[The Rapture and the Bible](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/rapture_and_the_bible.mp3)**

 What will really happen on "The Last Day"

  **[The Sacraments and the Bible](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/sacraments_and_the_bible.mp3)**

 The Biblical foundations for three Sacraments

  **[Two-Minute Apologetics](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/2min_apologetics.mp3)**

 19 different topics in short Q&A format.

  **[Was Hitler Right?](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/was_hitler_right.mp3)**

 This is an apologetic aimed at atheists and social liberals.

  **[Which Came First, the Church or the Bible?](http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/which_came_first_church_or_bible.mp3)**

 Discussion of the Bible and how it was authored by the Church
 
St Irenaeus was thoroughly Catholic and taught things Protestantism condemns/rejects (eg Apostolic Succession, Papal Supremacy, etc).

If you think you’re going to find Protestantism in the Early Church Fathers, think again.
Would you mind listing the writings of Irenæus that talk about Apostolic Succession and Papal Supremacy? I don’t believe you can find them. There are no Apostles now; they died with the last Apostle.
 
Would you mind listing the writings of Irenæus that talk about Apostolic Succession and Papal Supremacy? I don’t believe you can find them. There are no Apostles now; they died with the last Apostle.
I don’t have the energy at the moment to look them up, but I’m sure others around here do. If not, go to the Catholic.com Library and look on the Papacy list, I’m sure the quotes are there.

I’ve see the quotes themselves, in the context, from St Irenaeus’ book Against Heresies.
 
Would you mind listing the writings of Irenæus that talk about Apostolic Succession and Papal Supremacy? I don’t believe you can find them. There are no Apostles now; they died with the last Apostle.
Please show where it says that in the Word of God.

In your own words, " I don’t believe you can find them." because it nowhere says that that ministry and position in the church will cease.

What it does say is, "28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? " (1st Corinthians 12)

Also in Ephesians 4 it says, “11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;”

Where does it ever even infer that these ministries will cease? it’s just not there.
 
Would you mind listing the writings of Irenæus that talk about Apostolic Succession and Papal Supremacy? I don’t believe you can find them. There are no Apostles now; they died with the last Apostle.
Irenaeus

“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 to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3:3:3).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8). *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top