The CFs: SS or STC

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Opps! forgot VI, 15.

The liars, then, in reality are not those who for the sake of the scheme of salvation conform, nor those who err in minute points, but those who are wrong in essentials, and reject the Lord and as far as in them lies deprive the Lord of the true teaching; who do not quote or deliver the Scriptures in a manner worthy of God and of the Lord; for the deposit rendered to God, according to the teaching of the Lord by His apostles, is the understanding and the practice of the godly tradition. “And what ye hear in the ear”-- that is, in a hidden manner, and in a mystery (for such things are figuratively said to be spoken in the ear) --“proclaim,” He says, “on the housetops,” understanding them sublimely, and delivering them in a lofty strain, and according to the canon of the truth explaining the Scriptures; for neither prophecy nor the Savior Himself announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be easily apprehended by all and sundry, but express them in parables. The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that “He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;” and if “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made,” consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. “But all things are right,” says the Scripture, “before those who understand,” that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord.
[St. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata

VI, 15]
Clement argues that the liars [heretics] are those who error not in small things but in essentials and fall into this because they do not read the Scriptures according to the "ecclesiastic rule.’

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

For that the human assemblies which they held were posterior to the Catholic Church requires not many words to show.
. . . it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].
From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith–which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord–those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.
But the pre-eminence of the Church, as the principle of union, is, in its oneness, in this surpassing all things else, and having nothing like or equal to itself. But of this afterwards.
Of the heresies, some receive their appellation from a [person’s] name, as that which is called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides, although they boast of adducing the opinion of Matthew [without truth]; for as the teaching, so also the tradition of the apostles was one. Some take their designation from a place, as the Peratici; some from a nation, as the [heresy] of the Phrygians; some from an action, as that of the Encratites; and some from peculiar dogmas, as that of the Docetae, and that of the Harmatites; and some from suppositions, and from individuals they have honoured, as those called Cainists, and the Ophians; and some from nefarious practices and enormities, as those of the Simonians called Entychites.
[St. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata

VII, 17]

As we have seen before in Tertullian and Irenaeus, Clement uses the argument from antiquity against heretical novelties. He tends to emphasize the antiquity of the Church in his argument, but does also touch upon the antiquity of its teaching.

 

[Koineman]

Where the individual posts show on the right there is an item that reads “Display.” Click that and in the drop down menu click “Switch to Threaded Mode.” This display mode traces all the responses to their origin.

I’ve done that, but I think now I see what you mean. I thought you were saying that you could make your post actually be positioned back at the beginning of the thread; rather you’re saying you can set it up so that you can easily trace it.

 

[Koineman]

Having gone through Irenaeus’ work at length, I decided to quote another father: St. Cyril of Jerusalem. This particular quote seems to be a popular one, as evidenced by its widespread appearance on the Internet. I checked the context, both before and after this text, and there did not seem to be anything related to the role of the Scriptures. Perhaps somewhere else in the Catechetical Lectures he goes into more detail on this, but for now:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV, section 17:

1. Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

This is definitely one of the stronger affirmations of what I have defined earlier as sola Scriptura. St.Cyril here says two things about Scripture: 1) not any doctrinal statement—not even a casual statement—should be delivered apart from Scripture; 2) even he should not be believed unless what he says can be proven from the Scriptures, and 3) the very salvation they believe in depends on demonstration of (or proof from) the Scriptures.

 

[Koineman]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V, section 12:

1. But in learning the Faith and in 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 all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.

**This is another strong affirmation of the primary role of Scripture in affirming any teaching that men communicate. Referring to the boldfaced portions above, he first affirms that the faith was delivered by the Church but “built up” out of the Scriptures. Thus, he sees the Church as the deliverer and communicator of the faith but the Scriptures as the source of it. Second, he tells them to expect the Scriptures to confirm every detail of the faith that he is now teaching them. Third, he affirms that the articles of the faith were not composed arbitrarily by men, as if man-made, but rather they were “collected out of all the Scripture” and comprise the entire content of that faith. Finally, he exhorts them to hold those traditions fast.

In summary, we can certainly say that St. Cyril regards the Scriptures as having final authority over whatever men teach, and that any teaching should be confirmed by the Scriptures. He also affirms the importance and necessity of the Church, but he points out that the Church’s role was to derive the doctrines of the faith from Scripture and deliver them to others.**

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Having gone through Irenaeus’ work at length, I decided to quote another father: St. Cyril of Jerusalem. This particular quote seems to be a popular one, as evidenced by its widespread appearance on the Internet. I checked the context, both before and after this text, and there did not seem to be anything related to the role of the Scriptures. Perhaps somewhere else in the Catechetical Lectures he goes into more detail on this, but for now:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV, section 17:

This is definitely one of the stronger affirmations of what I have defined earlier as sola Scriptura. St.Cyril here says two things about Scripture: 1) not any doctrinal statement—not even a casual statement—should be delivered apart from Scripture; 2) even he should not be believed unless what he says can be proven from the Scriptures, and 3) the very salvation they believe in depends on demonstration of (or proof from) the Scriptures.

Thanks for keeping up the conversation. OK a couple of things.

(1) Regarding the 2nd century, what is your assessment of Irenaeus’ teaching on the means of handing on God’s word? Also what is your assessment of Clement of Alexandria’s? And what is your assessment of the first two centuries as a whole?

(2) We’ve skipped (Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage) to enter the mid and late 4th century now with Cyril. Should we survey the 4th century as a whole and see what the general consensus is there and then go back to 3rd?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V, section 12:

**This is another strong affirmation of the primary role of Scripture in affirming any teaching that men communicate. Referring to the boldfaced portions above, he first affirms that the faith was delivered by the Church but “built up” out of the Scriptures. Thus, he sees the Church as the deliverer and communicator of the faith but the Scriptures as the source of it. Second, he tells them to expect the Scriptures to confirm every detail of the faith that he is now teaching them. Third, he affirms that the articles of the faith were not composed arbitrarily by men, as if man-made, but rather they were “collected out of all the Scripture” and comprise the entire content of that faith. Finally, he exhorts them to hold those traditions fast.

In summary, we can certainly say that St. Cyril regards the Scriptures as having final authority over whatever men teach, and that any teaching should be confirmed by the Scriptures. He also affirms the importance and necessity of the Church, but he points out that the Church’s role was to derive the doctrines of the faith from Scripture and deliver them to others.**

I would include several other texts from this work by Cyril that IMO show a much stronger view of the Church’s role and tradition than you suggest, i.e. the church simply delivering doctrines it has deduced and derived from Scripture alone. I would divide them into (a) direct statements and (b) conclusions from his content.

(a)

1. Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ’s school. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dose thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed?
2. Study earnestly these [Scriptures] only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes.
   [Next he lists his canon of the OT and in #36 the NT.]
3. . . . And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say.
   [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, IV]
Clearly here the church has the authority to select the canon itself. This includes the “bishops of old time” whom he calls “the presidents of the Church.” They “handed down” [process of tradition] the canon. And the practice of the Churches is normative regarding the Scriptures to read. All of this points IMO to a far stronger view of the Catholic Church’s role and describes the process of tradition as well. This process is evidently more than just delivering doctrines derived from the Scriptures alone and shows a deeper older root and source for judging doctrine then the canon since the canon (Scripture itself) was selected using it.

And if ever you are ever visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, XVIII, 26]

In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord. For ours is no trifling aim, but our endeavour is for eternal life.
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, XVIII, 28]

Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offense. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures, XXIII, 23] On the Mysteries, V
There is one Church, “the Catholic Church,” the “mother of us all” who through her teaching and sacramental life leads us to eternal life. We must preserve communion [unity in faith and worship] with her.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

(b)
His baptismal and Eucharistic theology and liturgical descriptions square with those witnessed to by authors who teach explicitly about tradition and squares with the traditional liturgy of the Church East and West. This theology differs markedly (often diametrically) from Reformation theologies deriving doctrine and practice from Scripture alone. See his On the Mysteries I-V = Catechetical Lectures XIX-XXIII. A few illustrations follow.

Great is the Baptism that lies before you : a ransom to captives; a remission of offenses; a death of sin; a new-birth of the soul; a garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of adoption!
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, Prologue, 16]

“you have been made fit to receive the more sacred Mysteries, after having been found worthy of divine and life-giving Baptism.”
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures, XIX, 1] On the Mysteries, I

Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John’s was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ. For this cause Paul just now cried aloud and said, Or are you ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into His death. These words he spoke to some who were disposed to think that Baptism ministers to us the remission of sins, and adoption, but has not further the fellowship also, by representation, of Christ’s true sufferings.
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures, XX, 6] On the Mysteries, V
Baptism is life-giving (gives new birth), cleanses us of sin, and conforms us to death and resurrection of Christ. It causes what it signifies.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.”
[St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 19,7] On the Mysteries, I,7

“I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, . . . ” (1 Cor 11:23)

1. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, you have become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, “That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.” Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, “This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, “This is My Blood,” who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood , and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? . . .
3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, “we become partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Pt 1:4).
   . . .
4. Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.
   . . .
5. Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ.
   [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, 22, 1-9] On the Mysteries, IV

1. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.
   [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, 23, 7] On the Mysteries, V
The bread and wine are truly changed. The Lord is truly and really present in the Eucharistic elements even though they retain the appearance of bread and wine.

1. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world ; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.
2. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls , for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.
3. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.
   [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures

, 23, 8-10] On the Mysteries, V
The sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is discussed as well as the value of prayers for the dead.

 

[Koineman]

(a)

Clearly here the church has the authority to select the canon itself.

I don’t think that was what Cyril was driving at. Let’s read his words exactly as they are. When he wrote, “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New,” he is simply saying that one should learn from the church what those books are. That does not have to mean anything about authority to select those books. He is simply telling people where to go to learn what the canon consists of. That squares just fine with the concept of the church as deliverer.

This includes the “bishops of old time” whom he calls “the presidents of the Church.” They “handed down” [process of tradition] the canon.

 

[Koineman]

(b)
His baptismal and Eucharistic theology and liturgical descriptions square with those witnessed to by authors who teach explicitly about tradition and squares with the traditional liturgy of the Church East and West.

Yes, but this says nothing about what he thought about the church’s authority to determine correct doctrine. All you’re saying here is that he agreed with others about baptism and the Eucharist. You’re not proving anything about the authority they consulted to arrive at those beliefs.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I don’t think that was what Cyril was driving at. Let’s read his words exactly as they are. When he wrote, “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New,” he is simply saying that one should learn from the church what those books are. That does not have to mean anything about authority to select those books. He is simply telling people where to go to learn what the canon consists of. That squares just fine with the concept of the church as deliverer.

Handing down is not really the same as having the authority to select the canon. Again, let’s allow Cyril’s words to speak for him: “Study earnestly these [Scriptures] only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books.” He is saying, don’t take it upon yourself to decide which books to read, but read those which have been passed on in tradition. That says nothing about the authority to select those books. What it does say is that the books originated with the apostles, and the bishops who succeeded them simply passed them on. Nothing is said about authority to select which books belong in the canon. Receiving what has been passed on, and faithfully passing that on to successive bishops, is not selecting. Again: Cyril says nothing about the authority to select the canon.

Like any hermeneutic effort (including that regarding Scripture) what one must do is read what is said in the context of the times.

I quite agree with you that he says to read only those books passed on in tradition and originating from the apostles (and men of apostolic times). However, Cyril did not live under a theological dome. Debates about which books were apostolic and inspired and so canonical were raging at the time and varied canons were arrived at even in the East, to say nothing of the West. In V, 36 Cyril adverts to the Gospel of Thomas and why he rejects it. His own list includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah in the OT. He excludes Revelation from the NT!. Origin excluded Baruch. Athanasius omited Esther. St. Epiphanius included Sirach and Wisdom in the New Testament.

So nobody thought that the Canon of Scripture just happened to appear and be subsequently handed on by tradition in the Church. They were aware of the numerous claimants to inclusion in the canon of both the OT and NT many bearing the name of apostles. They all knew that a process of selection was taking place in the Church vis-a-vis heretical renditions and books, and many of them as shepherds of the Church in apostolic succession were taking part in it by that authority. That authority in their mind stems from the apostolic community at Pentecost and their preaching God’s word in the Church.

He may teach little explicitly about the Church’s authority to select the canon based on apostolic tradition going back to Pentecost, but his actions in the context of the times says it quite clearly.

Indeed tradition, but not authority over the teaching of Scripture. Again, Cyril does not ascribe any such authority to the church in these texts. He is speaking of sticking with what the church has received from the apostles and passed on; he is saying nothing about the authority to determine the canon or correct doctrine. What is clear, however, is that he attributes the authority for correct doctrine to the Scriptures, and he clearly describes that authority as superior to any teacher in the church. That is incontrovertible.

In the texts I have quoted so far, it is very noteworthy that Cyril is telling even catechumens–certainly people who knew much less than he did and who had no clerical authority in the church–to test what he says using the Scriptures, and he tells them to expect confirmation of the church’s teaching from Scripture. If he wanted to convey the notion that the church has more authority than Scripture, and that one should trust the Church’s interpretation of Scripture without exception, then certainly he would have admonished these newcomers to the faith to do just that–to accept without question the articles of the faith contained in this document without any recourse to Scripture.

Once again we are at our hermeneutical question. It is an artifact of maintaining SS to see in the CC view tradition or the church have authority over the teaching of Scripture. All three in STC were united from the beginning as is clear from the 2nd c texts we studied and also the 3rd c. It is just that when one maintains SS what differs from their interpretation of Scripture alone is seen as being added by an extraneous authority over against Scripture.

As a bishop in succession of the Church of Jerusalem Cyril consciously takes part in the selection process advancing his own enumeration of the canon to catechumens clearly illustrating to them his and others’ authority to do so.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes, but this says nothing about what he thought about the church’s authority to determine correct doctrine. All you’re saying here is that he agreed with others about baptism and the Eucharist. You’re not proving anything about the authority they consulted to arrive at those beliefs.

Well . . . yes and no. Again, yes, Cyril teaches doctrine is derived from Scripture. And he may teach little explicitly about the Church’s authority to determine correct doctrine based on apostolic tradition going back to Pentecost, but his actions in the context of the times says it quite clearly. He handed on the liturgy and sacramental theology he received that was already practiced in the Church and attested to by earlier fathers.

It is his claim that the following convictions are Scriptural: Baptism is life-giving (gives new birth); cleanses us of sin, and conforms us to death and resurrection of Christ; causes what it signifies. The bread and wine are truly changed; the Lord is truly and really present in the Eucharistic elements even though they retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Eucharist is sacrificial. And prayers for the dead are efficacious and of value. I agree.

I think the points I have been making about Cyril are very serious hermeneutic considerations in grasping the significance of his teaching and practice in context of the times and its meaning. However in keeping with the candor and honesty we have been trying to exercise I would admit that if, prescinding from context, one just takes his words alone as a human assertion, they themselves say little other than what you describe about how doctrine is derived.

So if one just takes Cyril’s bare words and nothing more as if they were asserted today (“read his words exactly as they are”)–again IMO a woefully inadequate hermeneutic method–one could put them in the SS column.

So,
(1) Regarding the 2nd century, what is your assessment of Irenaeus’ teaching on the means of handing on God’s word? Also what is your assessment of Clement of Alexandria’s? And what is your assessment of the first two centuries as a whole?

(2) We’ve skipped (Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage) to enter the mid and late 4th century now with Cyril. Should we survey the 4th century as a whole and see what the general consensus is there and then go back to 3rd?

 

[Koineman]

Continuing on with Cyril:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XII, section 5:

1. And first let us inquire for what cause Jesus came down. **Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? **If then thou seekest the cause of Christ’s coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures. In six days God made the world: but the world was for man. The sun however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, and all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment. All the works of creation were good, but none of these was an image of God, save man only. The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands: Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. A wooden image of an earthly king is held in honour; holy much more a rational image of God?

**This is another clear, incontrovertible statement of Cyril regarding the supremacy of Scripture over any teaching by any man. He tells the catechumens quite clearly not to trust anything unless it is testified by the Prophets; and he tells them–again, clearly–that they should not accept testimony from man unless they learn it from the Scriptures.

Again, I have to say: If Cyril really believed that the church had authority higher than Scripture, then he would certainly have encouraged his catechumens to listen to the church before Scripture, and indeed, to test Scripture against the Church’s teaching. But he does not do that; he does the reverse. Of all people, these catechumens, who were so new to the faith and in such dire need of wise, correct guidance, needed to be told the rule by which to discern truth from error. And Cyril indeed tells them by directing them to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. What a cruel deceiver he would have been if he knew that the Church had higher authority than Scripture but nevertheless told the catechumens the reverse!

This is a clear affirmation of sola Scriptura, as defined earlier in this thread.
**

 

[Koineman]

St. Cyril, Catechetical Lectures—the following is cited in “Appendix to Lecture IX” along with the indication that it is a variant (and by St. Basil):

At the end of the same section, after the words “Wise Creator,” this is found: “Glorify Him in His unsearchable works, and concerning Him whom thou art not capable of knowing, inquire not curiously what His essence is. **It is better for thee to keep silence, and in faith adore, according to the divine Word, than daringly to search after things which neither thou canst reach, nor Holy Scripture hath delivered to thee. ** These points my discourse has now treated at large, that thou mayest abhor those who blaspheme the wise and good Artificer, and rather mayest thyself also say, How wonderful are Thy works O Lord; in wisdom hast Thou made them all. To Thee be the glory, and power, and worship, with the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and throughout all ages. Amen.”

Although Cyril does not here explicitly elevate the Scriptures over any man, as he did in the other passages quoted, he does tell his audience to limit their beliefs to only what Scripture “hath delivered to thee.”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Continuing on with Cyril:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XII, section 5:

This is another clear, incontrovertible statement of Cyril regarding the supremacy of Scripture over any teaching by any man. He tells the catechumens quite clearly not to trust anything unless it is testified by the Prophets; and he tells them–again, clearly–that they should not accept testimony from man unless they learn it from the Scriptures.

Thank you for the additional data. I have to ask though, Are we going to have a conversation or not? You surely have seen above my attempts at it.

While I await your response I’ll make some more efforts at conversation.

(3) To call any teaching differing from one’s interpretation of Scripture alone the teaching of men is to rephrase SS and ignore the unity of STC in the ancient church. That unity shows up in Cyril who participated as Bishop of Jerusalem in the discernment of the canon of Scripture and handed on the liturgical life, sacramental theology life of the church and the efficacy of prayer for the dead. These last three differ markedly (often diametrically) from Reformation theologies deriving doctrine and practice from Scripture alone. Are you willing to say they were derived from Scripture alone?

**Again, I have to say: If Cyril really believed that the church had authority higher than Scripture, then he would certainly have encouraged his catechumens to listen to the church before Scripture, and indeed, to test Scripture against the Church’s teaching. But he does not do that; he does the reverse. Of all people, these catechumens, who were so new to the faith and in such dire need of wise, correct guidance, needed to be told the rule by which to discern truth from error. And Cyril indeed tells them by directing them to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. What a cruel deceiver he would have been if he knew that the Church had higher authority than Scripture but nevertheless told the catechumens the reverse!

This is a clear affirmation of sola Scriptura, as defined earlier in this thread.
**

(4) Regarding this argument I think you are posing an intelligent question to the text and reasoning thoughtfully from it. I would argue that there is a question to pose to the text that takes the historical context into greater consideration. I don’t think it is disputable that the 2nd and 3rd century fathers taught STC–although I await your response to (1) and (2) below. So the real question is: if Cyril intended to reject all of this teaching and practice operative down through time and in his present day regarding the transmission of God’s word by STC and advance SS as it is understood by the Reformation instead, why didn’t he defend that change? He would be proposing a complete new teaching to these catechumens. They would going out into the Christian world with a teaching that flies in the face of everything else they would be taught and see practiced in the great apostolic Churches and their bishops throughout the world. Where is his effort to prepare them for this and defend this innovation?

However, I repeat:
I think the points I have been making about Cyril are very serious hermeneutic considerations in grasping the significance of his teaching and practice in context of the times and its meaning. However in keeping with the candor and honesty we have been trying to exercise I would admit that if, prescinding from context, one just takes his words alone as a human assertion, they themselves say little other than what you describe about how doctrine is derived.

So if one just takes Cyril’s bare words and nothing more as if they were asserted today (“read his words exactly as they are”)–again IMO a woefully inadequate hermeneutic method–one could put them in the SS column.

So, again
(1) Regarding the 2nd century, what is your assessment of Irenaeus’ teaching on the means of handing on God’s word? Also what is your assessment of Clement of Alexandria’s? And what is your assessment of the first two centuries as a whole?

(2) We’ve skipped (Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage) to enter the mid and late 4th century now with Cyril. Should we survey the 4th century as a whole and see what the general consensus is there and then go back to 3rd?

 

[Koineman]

Fr_of_Jazz:
Thank you for the additional data. I have to ask though, Are we going to have a conversation or not? You surely have seen above my attempts at it.

I responded to your initial disagreement. In that response, I explained reasonably why I thought your critique on my summary of St. Cyril’s remarks does not work. Beyond that, I don’t wish to debate. Back when you first proposed the idea of exploring the church fathers on this topic, I initially declined for that very reason: the futility of such debates and the fact that they become endless back-and-forth disagreements that get nowhere. I have seen it countless times on the Internet, and that is what this thread will degenerate into if I keep responding to what is obviously an attempt on your part to engage in debate. I am even less inclined to engage in such a debate when I suspect it is being done to get around a clear text that is at friction with your cherished system.

St. Cyril’s words are quite clear. He expressed a markedly different view of the relation between Scripture and the Church than did Tertullian and Irenaeus. You need to accept that objectively. Based on what I’ve seen so far in your responses to these clear texts, however, I seriously doubt you are being objective.

I am doing my best to be objective in my summaries of the texts I come across. That is what I am after in this thread. I clearly did that regarding Tertullian and Irenaeus, repeatedly interpreting them in such a way that went against sola scriptura. Likewise, I am now being objective with the writings of St. Cyril.

For a thread like this to work and be free of the degeneration I described above, absolute objectivity is required for all involved. It is difficult, but it can be done. It can be frightening, too, because one might have to question whether the belief system one has held to for so long is in fact entirely true.

Set aside your cherished beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church when you read the Fathers. Be neutral. If you can’t do that, then this thread will be for you just an exercise in futility.

 

[Koineman]

St. Cyril, Catechetical lectures, Lecture XV, Section 13:

Now these things we teach, not of our own invention, but having learned them out of the divine Scriptures used in the Church1870, and chiefly from the prophecy of Daniel just now read; as Gabriel also the Archangel interpreted it, speaking thus: The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms1871. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, **has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters. ** For as the first kingdom which became renowned was that of the Assyrians, and the second, that of the Medes and Persians together, and after these, that of the Macedonians was the third, so the fourth kingdom now is that of the Romans1872. Then Gabriel goes on to interpret, saying, His ten horns are ten kings that shall arise; and another king shall rise up after them, who shall surpass in wickedness all who were before him1873; (he says, not only the ten, but also all who have been before him and he shall subdue three kings; manifestly out of the ten former kings: but it is plain that by subduing three of these ten, he will become the eighth king; and he shall speak words against the Most High1874. A blasphemer the man is and lawless, not having received the kingdom from his fathers, but having usurped the power by means of sorcery.

**Once again, Cyril creates a sharp dichotomy between Scripture and the inventions of men. He also points out that their teachings were learned “out of the divine Scriptures used in the Church.” These two things—his rejection of inventions of men and his holding up Scripture as the source of the church’s teachings—clearly indicate the superiority of Scripture’s authority over all that men teach.

A bit further on, he indicates a certain teaching as having been “the tradition of the Church’s interpreters.” Some might hastily interpret this to indicate that Cyril believed that Scripture and Tradition were on equal ground, since he gives considerable weight to a traditional teaching. This interpretation, however, would be reading too much into the text and would overturn his other clear statements (already posted) in which he describes Scripture as the superior, confirming authority for all that men teach. He certainly respects the traditional interpretation, but this does not require a conclusion that he equated Scripture with Tradition.**

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I responded to your initial disagreement. In that response, I explained reasonably why I thought your critique on my summary of St. Cyril’s remarks does not work. Beyond that, I don’t wish to debate. Back when you first proposed the idea of exploring the church fathers on this topic, I initially declined for that very reason: the futility of such debates and the fact that they become endless back-and-forth disagreements that get nowhere. I have seen it countless times on the Internet, and that is what this thread will degenerate into if I keep responding to what is obviously an attempt on your part to engage in debate. I am even less inclined to engage in such a debate when I suspect it is being done to get around a clear text that is at friction with your cherished system.

St. Cyril’s words are quite clear. He expressed a markedly different view of the relation between Scripture and the Church than did Tertullian and Irenaeus. You need to accept that objectively. Based on what I’ve seen so far in your responses to these clear texts, however, I seriously doubt you are being objective.

I am doing my best to be objective in my summaries of the texts I come across. That is what I am after in this thread. I clearly did that regarding Tertullian and Irenaeus, repeatedly interpreting them in such a way that went against sola scriptura. Likewise, I am now being objective with the writings of St. Cyril.

For a thread like this to work and be free of the degeneration I described above, absolute objectivity is required for all involved. It is difficult, but it can be done. It can be frightening, too, because one might have to question whether the belief system one has held to for so long is in fact entirely true.

Set aside your cherished beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church when you read the Fathers. Be neutral. If you can’t do that, then this thread will be for you just an exercise in futility.

We all have our belief systems that we cherish, including you as I can tell by the very Reformation-based language in which you cast your observations. I have nothing to fear from the fathers and the Councils of the undivided Church. You don’t have to worry about that.

There is also solid historical and hermeneutic thinking which is objective. And there is dialogue and discussion, the standard scholarly tools for reaching consensus. If you want to suspend that whenever it is uncomfortable for you, I’ll play along up to a point since it is your thread.

You’ll note I did affirm twice that if one just takes Cyril’s bare words and nothing more as if they were asserted today (“read his words exactly as they are”), with the proviso that such is an inadequate hermeneutic method (ignores context), one could put them in the SS column.

OK so I gather that as you see it Irenaeus and Tertullian are STC. How about Clement of Alexandria? Have you seen those posts. And what is your assessment of the first two centuries as a whole?

Again further: We’ve skipped (Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage) to enter the mid and late 4th century now with Cyril. Should we survey the 4th century as a whole and see what the general consensus is there and then go back to 3rd?

 

[Koineman]

We all have our belief systems that we cherish, including you as I can tell by the very Reformation-based language in which you cast your observations. I have nothing to fear from the fathers and the Councils of the undivided Church. You don’t have to worry about that.

I think that you do have a lot to fear from church fathers who speak clearly in a manner that supports sola scriptura; hence your attempt to get around St. Cyril’s writing by referring to “historical context,” which I’ve already responded to–and rationally, I might add.

Incidentally, I write here for the record that the issue of historical context was never brought up as long as I was writing summaries of Tertullian and Irenaeus that fit the Roman Catholic view like a glove. Now, however, suddenly out of the blue, I am being told that my approach to St. Cyril’s text is inadequate because I am not taking into account the historical context. Not only does this sudden, arbitrary emphasis on historical context make your bias very clear, it is also a common tactic that I have seen Catholics use often–and one which I don’t think even deserves a response (thus I am being quite charitable to respond to it at all). Most notably I have seen it happen with respect to the question of Pope Boniface VIII’s statement in Unam Sanctam that those who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff cannot be saved. What these people do is disingenuous (and desperate), essentially saying, “Yeah, Pope Boniface said that, but it only looks like he says those outside the church cannot be saved. What he really meant was _______________, which you will see, poor benighted opponent, if you just look at the historical context.” Sorry, Fr of Jazz, I don’t buy it.

In reality, it is I who have nothing to fear from the CFs because I am in an in-between state at this time, questioning Reformation thought and looking deeply into Eastern Orthodoxy. IOW, I am much closer to neutral than you are. So your observation that I “cherish” a system is most inaccurate. You have more at stake than I do. You are firmly entrenched in your system, whereas I am not firmly entrenched in any particular system at this time.

There is also solid historical and hermeneutic thinking which is objective. And there is dialogue and discussion, the standard scholarly tools for reaching consensus. If you want to suspend that whenever it is uncomfortable for you, I’ll play along up to a point since it is your thread.

This kind of comment is precisely the kind of spark that sets off pointless debating that is a waste of time. You insinuated that I suspend dialogue and discussion “whenever it is comfortable for [me]” which is not the case. I explained very clearly and reasonably why I don’t wish to debate. If you wish to read into that a desire on my part to avoid discussion when it’s “uncomfortable,” you are entitled to your opinion, but be aware that it’s remarks like this one of yours that only confirm my wish to avoid debate.

OK so I gather that as you see it Irenaeus and Tertullian are STC. How about Clement of Alexandria? Have you seen those posts. And what is your assessment of the first two centuries as a whole?

I don’t have an assessment of the first two centuries “as a whole.” Remember, this is an ongoing effort. Right now, my initial prediction is coming true: that some CFs come on the side of sola scriptura.

Again further: We’ve skipped (Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage) to enter the mid and late 4th century now with Cyril. Should we survey the 4th century as a whole and see what the general consensus is there and then go back to 3rd?

I’m not really following a particular timeline on this, but if you wish to continue posting texts from earlier periods, feel free. This thread’s purpose is simply to survey what the CFs said about SS vs. STC. Quoting CFs in a nonchronological order will not militate against that goal.

There, now that I’ve wasted a lot of time defending myself against false insinuations in this post (see what I mean!?!), let’s continue with exploring the CFs.