The CFs: SS or STC

[Koineman]

I would like to look at another text that is quoted by Protestants in support of sola Scriptura. This is from St. Gregory of Nyssa: On the Soul and the Resurrection

Just a little background: The woman St. Gregory cited in this text was the sister of Basil. St. Gregory visited her after Basil’s death.

I may be quoting more of this than is necessary, but as in the past, I want to provide context for the relevant portions, which are boldfaced.

Upon this I recurred to the definition which she had previously given of the soul, and I said that to my thinking her definition had not indicated distinctly enough all the powers of the soul which are a matter of observation. It declares the soul to be an intellectual essence which imparts to the organic body a force of life by which the senses operate. Now the soul is not thus operative only in our scientific and speculative intellect; it does not produce results in that world only, or employ the organs of sense only for this their natural work. On the contrary, we observe in our nature many emotions of desire and many of anger; and both these exist in us as qualities of our kind, and we see both of them in their manifestations displaying further many most subtle differences. There are many states, for instance, which are occasioned by desire; many others which on the other hand proceed from anger; and none of them are of the body; but that which is not of the body is plainly intellectual. Now our definition exhibits the soul as something intellectual; so that one of two alternatives, both absurd, must emerge when we follow out this view to this end; either anger and desire are both second souls in us, and a plurality of souls must take the place of the single soul, or the thinking faculty in us cannot be regarded as a soul either (if they are not), the intellectual element adhering equally to all of them and stamping them all as souls, or else excluding every one of them equally from the specific qualities of soul.

You are quite justified, she replied, in raising this question, and it has ere this been discussed by many elsewhere; namely, what we are to think of the principle of desire and the principle of anger within us. Are they consubstantial with the soul, inherent in the soul’s very self from her first organization , or are they something different, accruing to us afterwards? In fact, while all equally allow that these principles are to be detected in the soul, investigation has not yet discovered exactly what we are to think of them so as to gain some fixed belief with regard to them. The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. We must therefore neglect the Platonic chariot and the pair of horses of dissimilar forces yoked to it, and their driver, whereby the philosopher allegorizes these facts about the soul; we must neglect also all that is said by the philosopher who succeeded him and who followed out probabilities by rules of art , and diligently investigated the very question now before us, declaring that the soul was mortal by reason of these two principles; we must neglect all before and since their time, whether they philosophized in prose or in verse, and we will adopt, as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture, which lays it down as an axiom that there is no excellence in the soul which is not a property as well of the Divine nature. For he who declares the soul to be God’s likeness asserts that anything foreign to Him is outside the limits of the soul; similarity cannot be retained in those qualities which are diverse from the original. Since, then, nothing of the kind we are considering is included in the conception of the Divine nature, one would be reasonable in surmising that such things are not consubstantial with the soul either. Now to seek to build up our doctrine by rule of dialectic and the science which draws and destroys conclusions, involves a species of discussion which we shall ask to be excused from, as being a weak and questionable way of demonstrating truth. Indeed, it is clear to every one that that subtle dialectic possesses a force that may be turned both ways, as well for the overthrow of truth as for the detection of falsehood; and so we begin to suspect even truth itself when it is advanced in company with such a kind of artifice, and to think that the very ingenuity of it is trying to bias our judgment and to upset the truth. If on the other hand any one will accept a discussion which is in a naked unsyllogistic form, we will speak upon these points by making our study of them so far as we can follow the chain of Scriptural tradition.

My comments to follow …

 

[Koineman]

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection:

My comments on each boldfaced portion:

But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

**The phrase “the latter” refers to Gentile philosophy, which is said to be conducted in an arbitrary manner—“as the thinker pleased.” In clear, sharp contrast to that, it is then said that they (the Christians) are not entitled to thinking as they pleased but rather that they make the Scriptures the “rule and measure of every tenet.” To make it even clearer, it is then said that they approve only those things that can be harmonized with the intention of Scripture (“those writings”).

Some things can be deduced from this, namely:

1. The Scriptures are here seen as an all-encompassing rule in that they are used to test every belief;
2. Only those things that can be harmonized with Scripture are approved.**

we must neglect all before and since their time, whether they philosophized in prose or in verse, and we will adopt, as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture,

The point here is that these philosophers, whose thinking is outside Scripture, should be neglected, and that instead Scripture will be used as “the guide of our reasoning.” The meaning is that the Scriputres should be consulted instead of those whose thinking is not informed by biblical truths.

we will speak upon these points by making our study of them so far as we can follow the chain of Scriptural tradition.

This is a difficult part because the phrase “Scriptural tradition” is not defined. What we can say for sure is that, since Scripture is used adjectivally to modify the noun tradition, the tradition in view here is marked by, or characterized by, Scripture. Whether it refers to the Scripture itself or teaching derived from the Scripture is difficult to say, but clearly it cannot be something that is separate from Scripture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Koineman:

The phrase “the latter” refers to Gentile philosophy, which is said to be conducted in an arbitrary manner—“as the thinker pleased.” In clear, sharp contrast to that, it is then said that they (the Christians) are not entitled to thinking as they pleased but rather that they make the Scriptures the “rule and measure of every tenet.” To make it even clearer, it is then said that they approve only those things that can be harmonized with the intention of Scripture (“those writings”).

Some things can be deduced from this, namely:

1. The Scriptures are here seen as an all-encompassing rule in that they are used to test every belief;
2. Only those things that can be harmonized with Scripture are approved.

First of all, congrats on looking into what Protestants before you used at proof texts for SS. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Secondly, and I am not disagreeing with your statement above, heaven forbid. I just want you to remember, what Fr of Jazz said way at the beginning.

That SS really means OUR INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, right now, as decided by ourselves using private judgement.

IOW, your comments above do not really address SS, but rather illustrate how** the Church **judges every belief by whether it can be harmonized to Scripture. Here St. Gregory is using the word “we” to refer to Himself (The Bishop of Nyssa) in communion with all of the other Bishops of the Church. IOW, the Magisterium uses this rule, not individuals.

 

[Koineman]

First of all, congrats on looking into what Protestants before you used at proof texts for SS. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I see no reason for your sarcasm and implied criticism of my looking up what Protestants quote from the fathers. The CFs are quoted a lot on the Internet, but sadly, too often only brief snippets are quoted, and then copies of these are pasted and repasted, only duplicating the problem. I want to explore those quotes in their context. I see nothing wrong with that.

You, however, seem far too eager to fight. I sense serious bad blood and hostility. That being the case, I think your time would be much better spent in prayer and self-examination.

That SS really means OUR INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, right now, as decided by ourselves using private judgement.

First of all, the issue being explored in this thread is whether the CFs held to SS, not whether the definition of SS itself is correct. That is what you are getting at here, but it’s an entirely different question from what is being asked in this thread.

Second, it seems to me that you are not fully aware of what the doctrine of SS teaches. You seem to believe that it is the idea that each person can interpret the Bible as he wishes apart from the context of the church. That may be how many people use–and abuse–the doctrine, but that is not what was meant by the Reformers. Like many Catholics, you are attacking a distortion, and that is precisely why debates on the Internet end up going nowhere: People talk past each other. I suggest you do more studying on what the Reformers actually meant by sola scriptura, and then you will be less likely to attack distortions and, consequently , will be more likely to have profitable discussion.

IOW, your comments above do not really address SS, but rather illustrate how** the Church **judges every belief by whether it can be harmonized to Scripture. Here St. Gregory is using the word “we” to refer to Himself (The Bishop of Nyssa) in communion with all of the other Bishops of the Church. IOW, the Magisterium uses this rule, not individuals.

First, I think you may be reading too much into the text. What is it in the context itself that makes you think that the “we” is limited to the magisterium only?

Second, the words that I quoted, which you are referring to, were not spoken by a bishop but by the sister of Basil.

God bless you.

Jeremy

 

[Koineman]

More from St. Gregory of Nyssa in On the Soul and the Resurrection:

Much moved by these words, I said: To any one who reflects indeed, your exposition, advancing as it does in this consecutive manner, though plain and unvarnished, bears sufficiently upon it the stamp of correctness and hits the truth. And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.

**And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set? **So, if it is necessary that something from the Gospels should be adduced in support of our view, a study of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares will not be here out of place. The Householder there sowed good seed; (and we are plainly the “house”). But the “enemy,” having watched for the time when men slept, sowed that which was useless in that which was good for food, setting the tares in the very middle of the wheat. The two kinds of seed grew up together; for it was not possible that seed put into the very middle of the wheat should fail to grow up with it. But the Superintendent of the field forbids the servants to gather up the useless crop, on account of their growing at the very root of the contrary sort; so as not to root up the nutritious along with that foreign growth. Now we think that Scripture means by the good seed the corresponding impulses of the soul, each one of which, if only they are cultured for good, necessarily puts forth the fruit of virtue within us. But since there has been scattered among these the bad seed of the error of judgment as to the true Beauty which is alone in its intrinsic nature such, and since this last has been thrown into the shade by the growth of delusion which springs up along with it (for the active principle of desire does not germinate and increase in the direction of that natural Beauty which was the object of its being sown in us, but it has changed its growth so as to move towards a bestial and unthinking state, this very error as to Beauty carrying its impulse towards this result; and in the same way the seed of anger does not steel us to be brave, but only arms us to fight with our own people; and the power of loving deserts its intellectual objects and becomes completely mad for the immoderate enjoyment of pleasures of sense; and so in like manner our other affections put forth the worse instead of the better growths),— on account of this the wise Husbandman leaves this growth that has been introduced among his seed to remain there, so as to secure our not being altogether stripped of better hopes by desire having been rooted out along with that good-for-nothing growth. If our nature suffered such a mutilation, what will there be to lift us up to grasp the heavenly delights? If love is taken from us, how shall we be united to God? If anger is to be extinguished, what arms shall we possess against the adversary? Therefore the Husbandman leaves those bastard seeds within us, not for them always to overwhelm the more precious crop, but in order that the land itself (for so, in his allegory, he calls the heart) by its native inherent power, which is that of reasoning, may wither up the one growth and may render the other fruitful and abundant: but if that is not done, then he commissions the fire to mark the distinction in the crops. If, then, a man indulges these affections in a due proportion and holds them in his own power instead of being held in theirs, employing them for an instrument as a king does his subjects’ many hands, then efforts towards excellence more easily succeed for him. But should he become theirs, and, as when any slaves mutiny against their master, get enslaved by those slavish thoughts and ignominiously bow before them; a prey to his natural inferiors, he will be forced to turn to those employments which his imperious masters command. This being so, we shall not pronounce these emotions of the soul, which lie in the power of their possessors for good or ill, to be either virtue or vice. But, whenever their impulse is towards what is noble, then they become matter for praise, as his desire did to Daniel, and his anger to Phineas, and their grief to those who nobly mourn. But if they incline to baseness, then these are, and they are called, bad passions.

The quoted sentence is worth noting: "And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?"

The use of exclusive language is telling. Truth exists only in what Scripture affirms.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I see no reason for your sarcasm and implied criticism of my looking up what Protestants quote from the fathers. The CFs are quoted a lot on the Internet, but sadly, too often only brief snippets are quoted, and then copies of these are pasted and repasted, only duplicating the problem. I want to explore those quotes in their context. I see nothing wrong with that.

You, however, seem far too eager to fight. I sense serious bad blood and hostility. That being the case, I think your time would be much better spent in prayer and self-examination.

First of all, the issue being explored in this thread is whether the CFs held to SS, not whether the definition of SS itself is correct. That is what you are getting at here, but it’s an entirely different question from what is being asked in this thread.

Second, it seems to me that you are not fully aware of what the doctrine of SS teaches. You seem to believe that it is the idea that each person can interpret the Bible as he wishes apart from the context of the church. That may be how many people use–and abuse–the doctrine, but that is not what was meant by the Reformers. Like many Catholics, you are attacking a distortion, and that is precisely why debates on the Internet end up going nowhere: People talk past each other. I suggest you do more studying on what the Reformers actually meant by sola scriptura, and then you will be less likely to attack distortions and, consequently , will be more likely to have profitable discussion.

. . . .
God bless you.

Jeremy

I think you have requested that we delay the hermeneutic and theological discussions. I’m good with that so long as it doesn’t stand in the way of identifying the position of a father or council re our issue. I would say however there are 2 principles I think we need.
(1) We need to look at the whole of what a particular father says across his writings to make a determination as to what he teaches and holds. If memory serves, you agreed.
(2) If a father is to be placed in the SS camp he can’t just teach (across his writings) that Scripture is suitable for proof, and that it is probative against heresies and pagan philosophies, but must teach that and/or act such that Scripture alone can also judge and trump (apostolic) tradition handed on in/by the (Catholic) Church East and West. This is in fact what the Reformers said and did.

By all means rephrase (2) if you please. But something along these lines is necessary IMO. . . of course without Klingon-Federation bellicosity.

 

[Koineman]

I think you have requested that we delay the hermeneutic and theological discussions. I’m good with that so long as it doesn’t stand in the way of identifying the position of a father or council re our issue. I would say however there are 2 principles I think we need.
(1) We need to look at the whole of what a particular father says across his writings to make a determination as to what he teaches and holds. If memory serves, you agreed.

Doing such may or may not be helpful. If we find a particular CF, for example, who says in one place something that clearly affirms SS but then in another place says something clearly contradictory to that (or at least something that weakens it), then little will be accomplished–except to confirm my initial prediction.

(2) If a father is to be placed in the SS camp he can’t just teach (across his writings) that Scripture is suitable for proof, and that it is probative against heresies and pagan philosophies, but must teach that and/or act such that Scripture alone can also judge and trump (apostolic) tradition handed on in/by the (Catholic) Church East and West.

I don’t think the distinction you speak of here needs to be stated explicitly. All that a CF needs to say, to be seen as affirming SS, is to speak of Scriptural authority in such a way as to make Scripture the ultimate authority by which to judge with finality the truth of a teaching. That is what the Reformers meant.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Doing such may or may not be helpful. If we find a particular CF, for example, who says in one place something that clearly affirms SS but then in another place says something clearly contradictory to that (or at least something that weakens it), then little will be accomplished–except to confirm my initial prediction.

If a father does not teach that one should judge T and C by Scripture which is final or, at least, do that, how do we know that Scripture is the ultimate authority for him? and that therefore he affirms SS? T and C with S were definitely floating around as authorities then, as you’ve noticed. We all think Scripture is probative too.

Further your initial prediction was about the positions of separate fathers, not within an individual. I think we have to credit these guys individually with consistency in their thought, and try to see the big picture. I don’t think we can start with the assumption that they are schizoid.

Plus it is never fair to a thinker not to consider all he says in context to gain an estimate of his position as a whole.

I don’t think the distinction you speak of here needs to be stated explicitly. All that a CF needs to say, to be seen as affirming SS, is to speak of Scriptural authority in such a way as to make Scripture the ultimate authority by which to judge with finality the truth of a teaching. That is what the Reformers meant.

Well, there is a difference between saying Scripture is probative, which the CC East and West agrees with, and affirming SS. And there is a further difference between a father teaching that Scripture alone can judge and trump (apostolic) tradition handed on in/by the (Catholic) Church East and West rather than just judging pagan philosophies. The Reformers said and did so judge (apostolic) tradition handed on in/by the (Catholic) Church East and West. They did mean that and do still to this day.

 

[Koineman]

If a father does not teach that one should judge T and C by Scripture which is final or, at least, do that, how do we know that Scripture is the ultimate authority for him? and that therefore he affirms SS?

When the Scriptures are spoken of in exclusive language–e.g., when they are held up as the judge and measure of every teaching, or when that is made clear in some other way–we can conclude that C & T are meant to be judged by Scripture. Otherwise, saying that that particular CF did not intend to include C & T in those teachings that can be judged by Scripture is arbitrary (and unacceptable): “Yes, this CF says that every tenet is to be measured by Scripture, but he doesn’t really mean every tenet but only certain ones.”

Further your initial prediction was about the positions of separate fathers, not within an individual.

It doesn’t matter. It would still indicate a conflict of opinions on the matter. Even if an individual CF affirmed STC and then later in his life affirmed SS, or vice versa, we would still have a conflict between the two views.

I think we have to credit these guys individually with consistency in their thought, and try to see the big picture.

I’ll credit them with consistency in their thought if they were, in fact, consistent in their thought.

I don’t think we can start with the assumption that they are schizoid.

No need to invoke schizophrenia. All we need to do is read their texts and see what they clearly affirm. If it’s clear (as with Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyril) or unclear (as with Clement–at least he is still unclear to me), then we conclude accordingly.

Well, there is a difference between saying Scripture is probative, which the CC East and West agrees with, and affirming SS. And there is a further difference between a father teaching that Scripture alone can judge and trump (apostolic) tradition handed on in/by the (Catholic) Church East and West rather than just judging pagan philosophies. The Reformers said and did so judge (apostolic) tradition handed on in/by the (Catholic) Church East and West. They did mean that and do still to this day.

I’ve already answered this point. No need to repeat myself.

I’m not interested in making up new restrictions and parameters for this thread as we go. Not once did anyone think of introducing these new parameters and rules when I was posting pro-Catholic summaries of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Everything was hunky dory then. Now, however, when CFs with views that differ from the Catholic view are quoted, suddenly out of the blue we are seeing new rules and requirements for how to go about the discussion. Hmmm…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection:

My comments on each boldfaced portion:

**The phrase “the latter” refers to Gentile philosophy, which is said to be conducted in an arbitrary manner—“as the thinker pleased.” In clear, sharp contrast to that, it is then said that they (the Christians) are not entitled to thinking as they pleased but rather that they make the Scriptures the “rule and measure of every tenet.” To make it even clearer, it is then said that they approve only those things that can be harmonized with the intention of Scripture (“those writings”).

Some things can be deduced from this, namely:

1. The Scriptures are here seen as an all-encompassing rule in that they are used to test every belief;
2. Only those things that can be harmonized with Scripture are approved.**

The point here is that these philosophers, whose thinking is outside Scripture, should be neglected, and that instead Scripture will be used as “the guide of our reasoning.” The meaning is that the Scriputres should be consulted instead of those whose thinking is not informed by biblical truths.

This is a difficult part because the phrase “Scriptural tradition” is not defined. What we can say for sure is that, since Scripture is used adjectivally to modify the noun tradition, the tradition in view here is marked by, or characterized by, Scripture. Whether it refers to the Scripture itself or teaching derived from the Scripture is difficult to say, but clearly it cannot be something that is separate from Scripture.

Gregory was very steeped in and interested in Greek philosophy. This work is regarded by commentators as being modeled on and Gregory’s answer to Plato’s Phaedo where Socrates discusses the soul and afterlife the day before his execution.

Pagan philosophies regarding the soul and afterlife are clearly being challenged and interrogated and judged by the teachings of Scripture. The texts from this work you cite (in context) taken alone could give the impression that Gregory taught and maintained SS.

Yet he does also say in the same work before passage you cite:

“As for ourselves, we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church, and assert that it will be well to accept only so much of these speculations [of pagan philosophers, “pagan nonsense”] as is sufficient to show that those who indulge in them are to a certain extent in accord with the doctrine of the Resurrection.”

In all, Scripture alone is used over against “pagan,” “heathen” philosophies to judge them. Nothing is said about it being so used vis-à-vis Tradition and Church nor does he act in such a way as to suggest he intends to. And he does say “we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church.”

I do think one could put the words of this text so far as they go (against pagan philosophies) largely in the SS category. But does he teach and hold SS across his writings? IOW is SS his thought, position and teaching?

IMO numerous texts from his writing lead to the conclusion that it is not.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Take his lengthy treatise against Eunomius on a subject as fundamental as the Trinity, a topic on which the Cappadocian fathers are prolific. He says:

And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning:** for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them**. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius

, IV, 6]

The whole controversy, then, between the Church and the Anomœans turns on this: Are we to regard the Son and the Holy Spirit as belonging to created or uncreated existence?
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius

, I, 18]

While the Church teaches that we must not divide our faith among a plurality of beings, but must recognize no difference of being in three Subjects or Persons, whereas our opponents posit a variety and unlikeness among them as Beings,
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius

, I, 19]

In a famous letter on the Trinity he writes:

The question [regarding the Holy Trinity] is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep forever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods

]

In another letter to a church disturbed by heresy:

Therefore, that falsehood may not overpower the truth, in another letter we made a sufficient defence against the charges levelled at us, and before the Lord we protested that we had neither departed from the faith of the Holy Fathers, nor had we done anything without due discrimination and inquiry in the case of those who came over from the communion of Marcellus to that of the Church: but all that we did we did only after the orthodox in the East, and our brethren in the ministry had entrusted to us the consideration of the case of these persons, and had approved our action. But inasmuch as, since we composed that written defence of our conduct, again some of the brethren who are of one mind with us begged us to make separately with our own lips a profession of our faith, which we entertain with full conviction, following as we do the utterances of inspiration and the tradition of the Fathers, we deemed it necessary to discourse briefly of these heads as well. We confess that the doctrine of the Lord, which He taught His disciples, when He delivered to them the mystery of godliness, is the foundation and root of right and sound faith, nor do we believe that there is anything else loftier or safer than that tradition.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Letter 2

, To the City of Sebasteia]

Well, the Divine books are full of such instruction for our guidance; and besides that many of the Saints cast the refulgence of their own lives, like lamps, upon the path for those who are “walking with God. But each may gather in abundance for himself suggestions towards this end out of either Covenant in the inspired writings; the Prophets and the Law are full of them; and also the Gospel and the Traditions of the Apostles.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *On Virginity

, XI]

The notion that it is Gregory’s thought that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority rather than STC united cannot be sustained by his writings taken as a whole. Also never once in his writings does he teach or act in such a way as to make Scripture alone an authority over T and C. Those facts just cannot be ignored.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

When the Scriptures are spoken of in exclusive language–e.g., when they are held up as the judge and measure of every teaching, or when that is made clear in some other way–we can conclude that C & T are meant to be judged by Scripture. Otherwise, saying that that particular CF did not intend to include C & T in those teachings that can be judged by Scripture is arbitrary (and unacceptable): “Yes, this CF says that every tenet is to be measured by Scripture, but he doesn’t really mean every tenet but only certain ones.”

It doesn’t matter. It would still indicate a conflict of opinions on the matter. Even if an individual CF affirmed STC and then later in his life affirmed SS, or vice versa, we would still have a conflict between the two views.

I’ll credit them with consistency in their thought if they were, in fact, consistent in their thought.

No need to invoke schizophrenia. All we need to do is read their texts and see what they clearly affirm. If it’s clear (as with Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyril) or unclear (as with Clement–at least he is still unclear to me), then we conclude accordingly.

I’ve already answered this point. No need to repeat myself.

I’m not interested in making up new restrictions and parameters for this thread as we go. Not once did anyone think of introducing these new parameters and rules when I was posting pro-Catholic summaries of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Everything was hunky dory then. Now, however, when CFs with views that differ from the Catholic view are quoted, suddenly out of the blue we are seeing new rules and requirements for how to go about the discussion. Hmmm…

Or is it that when we want to look for specifically Reformation teachings in the fathers you balk. Hmmmm.

Where are we now with your restrictions? A father should be viewed as contradicting himself before we check for coherence? No statement that he has changed his views, no retraction (a la Augustine) is necessary? No statement by an expert secondary source that he indeed changed his view or was in consistent?

 

[Koineman]

Well, then, in light of the passages you cited, I have to say that we get conflicting views from St. Gregory. On the one hand, he speaks of Scripture as the measure for every tenet, yet in other places he seems to make the church the authority.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that the phrase “every tenet” suddenly does not mean exactly what it says just because of another text written by the same person that emphasizes tradition. So I find your quotes from other texts written by St. Gregory to be inconclusive.

Also, you really should quote more of the context of these texts instead of snippets. How do we know that there is not other text in those contexts that conflicts with it?

Yet he does also say in the same work before passage you cite:

“As for ourselves, we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church, and assert that it will be well to accept only so much of these speculations [of pagan philosophers, “pagan nonsense”] as is sufficient to show that those who indulge in them are to a certain extent in accord with the doctrine of the Resurrection.”

I’m not sure of this. Taking a stand on something is not the same as saying that something is the final authority. It certainly says that one is trusting in it as an authority, but it says nothing to indicate that Gregory thought of it as equal to Scripture in authority. So this does not conflict with the passages I quoted.

In all, Scripture alone is used over against “pagan,” “heathen” philosophies to judge them.

No. Pagan philosophies were certainly being addressed; you are correct in that. But you are going too far to say that this somehow excludes C & T from being under the authority of Scripture. You are misusing the context.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

A few additional texts, from additional works.

What then is the charge they bring against us? They accuse us of profanity for entertaining lofty conceptions about the Holy Spirit. All that we, in following the teachings of the Fathers, confess as to the Spirit, they take in a sense of their own, and make it a handle against us, to denounce us for profanity.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against the Followers of Macedonius

]
They “confess,” profess faith in the Holy Spirit, “following the teachings of the Fathers.”

Accordingly I supported the first encounter in the discussion with good courage, discharging from my shepherd’s scrip, i.e. from the teaching of the Church, my natural and unpremeditated arguments for the subversion of this blasphemy, needing not at all the equipment of arguments from profane sources to qualify me for the contest;
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book

, XII, 1]
Gregory judges the teachings of Eunomius heretical “from the teaching of the Church.”

This text is regarding a moral issue.

But since such cases have been passed over by our Fathers, we deem it sufficient on the principle of public teaching, that in purifying the infirmities of avarice through the word we treat them, as far as possible, as a kind of compound condition, and consider only theft, grave-robbing and sacrilege as morbid conditions, for such is the tradition that has come down to us from the succession of the Fathers.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Letter

31, Canonical Letter of the holy Gregory to Letoius among the saints, bishop of Melitene, 6]

Texts in prior post reference the fathers, tradition, the church, the church teaches, succession from the apostles, succession from fathers. I would also note that the expressions like “following the teachings of fathers” is used at several Ecumenical Councils in their profession of faith and dogmatic decrees. E.g., Chalcedon.

 

[Koineman]

Take his lengthy treatise against Eunomius on a subject as fundamental as the Trinity, a topic on which the Cappadocian fathers are prolific. He says:

And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, IV, 6]

I will grant you that some of the above text is written in exclusive language, for it says that the tradition is “enough for proof.” He didn’t just say that it was proof, or that he trusted it, or that he stood upon it; rather, he went so far as to say that it was “enough for proof.” When one says that something is enough, that means that nothing else is needed. That necessarily places it in a superior category.
So what do we have now? We have Gregory clearly using exclusive language in two different places. In one place he uses that language to refer to Scripture, and in another place he uses it to refer to tradition.

You argue that in the work, On the Soul and the Resurrection, St. Gregory’s words—or rather, the words of “the Teacher,” Basil’s sister—that every tenet is measured by Scripture is meant to mean not every single tenet without exception but only the tenets of pagan philosophies, since such philosophies were the subject of that text. However, I don’t accept that reasoning. It is using the backdrop of the text to make a very clear word mean something other than what it actually means, and in that case it is taking the context too far.

In a famous letter on the Trinity he writes:

The question [regarding the Holy Trinity] is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep forever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods]

He refers to only one thing as being inferior to tradition, and that is reason. He also says that they must keep the tradition faithfully. As with the quote above, all that shows is that he had a high regard for that tradition such that it should be kept faithfully; it says nothing about what level of authority he thought that it had in relation to Scripture.
In another letter to a church disturbed by heresy:

Therefore, that falsehood may not overpower the truth, in another letter we made a sufficient defence against the charges levelled at us, and before the Lord we protested that we had neither departed from the faith of the Holy Fathers, nor had we done anything without due discrimination and inquiry in the case of those who came over from the communion of Marcellus to that of the Church: but all that we did we did only after the orthodox in the East, and our brethren in the ministry had entrusted to us the consideration of the case of these persons, and had approved our action. But inasmuch as, since we composed that written defence of our conduct, again some of the brethren who are of one mind with us begged us to make separately with our own lips a profession of our faith, which we entertain with full conviction, following as we do the utterances of inspiration and the tradition of the Fathers, we deemed it necessary to discourse briefly of these heads as well. We confess that the doctrine of the Lord, which He taught His disciples, when He delivered to them the mystery of godliness, is the foundation and root of right and sound faith, nor do we believe that there is anything else loftier or safer than that tradition.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, Letter 2, To the City of Sebasteia]

This is another strong statement that describes tradition in exclusive language: “nor do we believe that there is anything else loftier or safer than that tradition.”

The notion that it is Gregory’s thought that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority rather than STC united cannot be sustained by his writings taken as a whole.

Due to the conflicts in what he says, the notion that Gregory believed in STC united cannot be sustained by his writings taken as a whole.
Just like I predicted: sometimes there is support for SS, sometimes not.

 

[Koineman]

Texts in prior post reference the fathers, tradition, the church, the church teaches, succession from the apostles, succession from fathers.

I’m not sure what this accomplishes. I’m not arguing that Gregory was against those things, so pointing out that he supported them doesn’t really go against what I was saying.

 

[Koineman]

I’m not interested in making up new restrictions and parameters for this thread as we go. Not once did anyone think of introducing these new parameters and rules when I was posting pro-Catholic summaries of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Everything was hunky dory then. Now, however, when CFs with views that differ from the Catholic view are quoted, suddenly out of the blue we are seeing new rules and requirements for how to go about the discussion. Hmmm…

Or is it that when we want to look for specifically Reformation teachings in the fathers you balk. Hmmmm.

If I were biased, why did I post such pro-Catholic summaries of Tertullian and Irenaeus? I find this reply of yours to be odd in light of such an obvious openness on my part.

This is the kind of thread degeneration I have been referring to, and precisely why I was reluctant to engage in this kind of thread to begin with. I thought that perhaps it would be different in this case, but I was clearly wrong.

I have responded to your most recent posts, Fr of Jazz, but I have no desire to discuss this with you further. It has become clear to me that you are too firmly entrenched in your system to look at the CFs with the kind of objectivity that is needed in this thread. I say that because of what I have already pointed out:

1. As long as I was posting pro-Catholic summaries of Irenaeus and Tertullian, there was absolutely no insistence on–not even a bare mention of–any of the recent restrictions you have brought up. There was no insistence to examine what those two CFs had to say across their entire writings. There was no insistence to distinguish between whether they were responding to pagan philosophies or not. Now, suddenly, you think of those restrictions and are passionate about them. If it is important to follow those rules and restrictions when reading the CFs, then surely you would have brought that up from the very beginning and insisted on applying those rules to Tertullian and Irenaeus. Since you did not, it is pretty clear that you have a double standard.
2. You have gone to the extent of using context to completely overturn the exclusive language used in the quotes from St. Gregory that I posted, such that you try to make the word every mean something less than every.
3. You have tried to discount St. Cyril’s clear expression of SS by pointing to the fact that he believed in Catholic doctrines such as the eucharist and baptism.

Forgive me if I seem to be judging you, but it is clear to me that you have no intention of exploring the CFs objectively and that you are not at all open to the possibility that your system is wrong. Your heels are dug in, and you are going to fight tooth and nail no matter what CF text is brought up that contradicts your cherished system. And don’t say that I have a cherished system as well, because, as I told you earlier, I am actually in between Protestantism and the EOC at this time in my life.

I will continue posting quotes from the CFs as I find them, and I will strive to be objective and non-biased about them (of which I have already proven myself to be quite capable). Since this is a public forum, you are, of course, free to make posts of your own, but I will not respond to them. I told you I didn’t want a debate that goes nowhere, and going by your posts, I can see that is what will happen.

God bless you.

 

[LionHeart777]

Koineman,

May God bless you in your journey. I can relate as a former Protestant myself who first was moving towards Eastern Orthodoxy, and finally became Catholic. Please give the topic of the Papacy the due diligence it deserves, investigating Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers. A book I recommend is S. Herbert Scott’s “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, investigating Eastern sources from the NT era up until Photius; unfortunately it is out of print. S. Herbert Scott was an Anglican, I believe. Peace.

Peace Fr. of Jazz, and all:thumbsup:

 

[Koineman]

Koineman,

May God bless you in your journey. I can relate as a former Protestant myself who first was moving towards Eastern Orthodoxy, and finally became Catholic. Please give the topic of the Papacy the due diligence it deserves, investigating Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers. A book I recommend is S. Herbert Scott’s “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, investigating Eastern sources from the NT era up until Photius; unfortunately it is out of print. S. Herbert Scott was an Anglican, I believe. Peace.

Thanks, LionHeart. I do plan to continue to post here, as I’ve been doing.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

If I were biased, why did I post such pro-Catholic summaries of Tertullian and Irenaeus? I find this reply of yours to be odd in light of such an obvious openness on my part.
This is the kind of thread degeneration I have been referring to, and precisely why I was reluctant to engage in this kind of thread to begin with. I thought that perhaps it would be different in this case, but I was clearly wrong.

You weren’t wrong: you just got more scholarship that you bargained for. Rather than taking your ball and going home, how about if you man up to it.

I have responded to your most recent posts, Fr of Jazz, but I have no desire to discuss this with you further. It has become clear to me that you are too firmly entrenched in your system to look at the CFs with the kind of objectivity that is needed in this thread. I say that because of what I have already pointed out:

Listen to yourself: I disagree with you therefore I’m entrenched. Objectivity doesn’t equal agreeing with you. It means coming to an agreement together on the meaning of a text together using accepted scholarly tools. What problem do you have with that? There is no scholar on earth in this field that would dispute the tools I am using.

1. As long as I was posting pro-Catholic summaries of Irenaeus and Tertullian, there was absolutely no insistence on–not even a bare mention of–any of the recent restrictions you have brought up. There was no insistence to examine what those two CFs had to say across their entire writings. There was no insistence to distinguish between whether they were responding to pagan philosophies or not. Now, suddenly, you think of those restrictions and are passionate about them. If it is important to follow those rules and restrictions when reading the CFs, then surely you would have brought that up from the very beginning and insisted on applying those rules to Tertullian and Irenaeus. Since you did not, it is pretty clear that you have a double standard.

Well, see here’s the thing, you chose not to use the normal tools involved in interpreting texts from the past. You’ll recall I did give you historical bkg for Tertullian. Now when I again do my due diligence that any credible scholar would to study the meaning of a text you say I have to follow you. Whose imposing what on whom? I never said you couldn’t use any legitimate tool at your disposal. What kind of game are you playing?

1. You have gone to the extent of using context to completely overturn the exclusive language used in the quotes from St. Gregory that I posted, such that you try to make the word every mean something less than every.

Quotes in one work, by a Christian writer who knows the value that literature had in the classical world, responding to a piece of classical literature, and who stresses the authority of his Christian literature to judge it. And you have a problem when I take that into consideration. You might as well be complaining that I really don’t think Jesus meant we should actually cut off our hand if it is a cause of sin or actually stop working for bread (food on the table) that perishes. You should read Warner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia.

Then, rather than trying to do the challenging task of synthesizing his thought, you take the easy way out and come to the conclusion that Gregory, a genius familiar with Greek philosophy and a saint (in the EOC too), is effectively incoherent in his thought.

1. You have tried to discount St. Cyril’s clear expression of SS by pointing to the fact that he believed in Catholic doctrines such as the eucharist and baptism.

Actually I first pointed to the fact that he as the Bishop of Jerusalem derived a canon of Scripture! That clearly suggests an authority beyond Scripture. Blowing that fact off by telling me I’m entrenched isn’t a response. It’s psychobabble.

Forgive me if I seem to be judging you, but it is clear to me that you have no intention of exploring the CFs objectively and that you are not at all open to the possibility that your system is wrong. Your heels are dug in, and you are going to fight tooth and nail no matter what CF text is brought up that contradicts your cherished system. And don’t say that I have a cherished system as well, because, as I told you earlier, I am actually in between Protestantism and the EOC at this time in my life.

Or you’re projecting. What’s clear to you is that I don’t agree with you for credible reasons that are good in anybody’s book but your own. Therefore I’m dug in, protecting my cherished system. It doesn’t in the least occur to you that you are not open to the possibility that your cherished view that the CC is wrong about the consensus of fathers siding with STC may not stand up to real scholarly analysis. You’re going to wind up in real trouble in the EOC. It’s their assessment too that the fathers teach STC. You do know the councils of the undivided church teach STC too.

I will continue posting quotes from the CFs as I find them, and I will strive to be objective and non-biased about them (of which I have already proven myself to be quite capable). Since this is a public forum, you are, of course, free to make posts of your own, but I will not respond to them. I told you I didn’t want a debate that goes nowhere, and going by your posts, I can see that is what will happen.

You really need to listen to yourself. You’re are better than this childish cat and mouse game. Going nowhere means disagreeing with you and not coming to the conclusion you want. That’s no way to have a dialogue.

If you’re the Christian man you purport to be, how about if you roll up your sleeves and start using your God-given brain.

Suck it up and get back in the ring.

God bless you.

God bless you. I’ll keep your search in prayer.