The CFs: SS or STC

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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:

Thanks. You too.

 

[LionHeart777]

I came across this at one of Dave Armstrong’s pages:

. . . with regard to the Fathers, all that is necessary [to show that they deny sola Scriptura] is to verify the following three propositions as held by a particular Father:

1. The Bible is authoritative and binding.
2. The Church’s teaching is authoritative and binding.
3. Sacred Tradition is authoritative and binding.

Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of.html

It might help, I’m just throwing it out there. There is more explanation on the page. I was looking into the view of the material sufficiency of Scripture discussed on this thread.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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.

He said it is “enough for proof of our statement.” You’re claiming he meant tradition “only is enough for proof of every statement.” He never said anything remotely like that.

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.

First of all the language is inclusive, “every,” not exclusive, “only.” And the language refers to tenets not to Scripture. Think. To say “we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet” is in no way the same as saying “we make Holy Scripture only the rule and the measure of every tenet.” The latter would be exclusive.

The context is important because he is juxtaposing Christian literature to pagan literature in a work modeled on Plato’s Phaedo. Gregory stresses the authority of his Christian literature to judge it. Gregory knew that “As the Greek paideia [education, cultivation of the human person] consisted in the entire corpus of Greek literature, so the Christian paideia is the Bible. Literature is paideia so far as it contains the highest norms of human life, which in it have taken on their lasting and most impressive form. It is the ideal picture of man, the great paradigm. Gregory clearly sees the analogy between this Greek concept of literature and the function of the Bible.” [Warner Jaeger, *Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, p. 92]

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.

Exactly. And besides, he didn’t live in 16th c. western Europe. That’s not an issue for him. You’re starting with an either-or template (either S or T) from Reformation polemics and reading it back to a time when it was not there.

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.”

What is “confessed” is the “doctrine of the Lord, which He taught His disciples” which was handed down to Gregory’s time. This kind of language includes at least the NT in what is handed down. Given that he is speaking inclusively he can say “nor do we believe that there is anything else loftier or safer than that tradition.”

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.

You are seeing exclusivity (and conflict) when it is not there. To say “we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet” is in no way the same as saying “we make Holy Scripture only the rule and the measure of every tenet.” Similarly to say that tradition is enough for proof is in no way identical to saying tradition only is enough for proof.

Rather than seeing a man who is a genius and a saint as conflicted; and seeing man who is trained in Greek philosophy consciously assenting to two mutually-exclusive propositions at the same time; based on seeing exclusivity when it is not there; it does greater justice to all he wrote to hold that, like Tertullian and Irenaeus, he saw all three, STC, working together. And in his writings as a whole he indeed uses all three together.

 

[Koineman]

I may take a day or two off from this forum to focus my life on more important things, but I do plan to resume soon.

 

[Koineman]

I thought it would be good to start looking into some earlier CFs, so I thought I’d look at one of the apostolic fathers: Ignatius. He emphasized unity with, and obedience to, the bishop and presbyters. He doesn’t say much, if anything at all, about Scripture itself, from what I have seen, but this emphasis on unity with the visible church and its teaching is definitely relevant to our topic.

Chapter XX of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephasians:

Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.

In addition to the valuable insight that Ignatius provides about the view of the Eucharist—it is “the medicine of immortality,” not just a symbol—it is noteworthy that he describes the Eucharist in the context of unity, being “in one faith” and “obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread.”

In another place, Ignatius exhorts his readers to be established in the teachings of the Lord and the apostles so that they might prosper along with the bishop, presbyters and deacons. In the same passage he tells them to be subject to the bishop and to one another so that there will be unity. This is all from chapter 13 of his epistle to the Magnesians:

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper, both in the flesh and spirit, in faith and love, with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Christ to the Father, that there may be a unity according to God among you.

Earlier in the same epistle, Ignatius makes similar comments but perhaps even stronger:

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God. Do ye all come together into the same place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, one mind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, than which nothing is more excellent. Do ye all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.

In his epistle to the Trallians, he writes:

And do ye reverence them as Christ Jesus, of whose place they are the keepers, even as the bishop is the representative of the Father of all things, and the presbyters are the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles of Christ. Apart from these there is no elect Church, no congregation of holy ones, no assembly of saints. I am persuaded that ye also are of this opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence. Loving you as I do, I avoid writing in any severer strain to you, that I may not seem harsh to any, or wanting [in tenderness]. I am indeed bound for the sake of Christ, but I am not yet worthy of Christ. But when I am perfected, perhaps I shall then become so. I do not issue orders like an apostle.

This is perhaps even stronger language. Outside of the deacons, bishop and presbyters, there is no church.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Thank you!

Some other quotes from Ignatius on similar topics.

The unity of the Church and orders in the Eucharist.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Letter to the Smyrneans, 6-7]

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God.
Letter to the Philadelphians, 4]

In the following quote he seems to be offering his impending martyrdom for the church united around the bishop.

Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!
To Polycarp, 6]

Again repeating a theme you discussed… Plus historians of doctrine note that this is the first instance of the word “Catholic” being used for the Church. By a curious coincidence he is the second Bishop of Antioch where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Letter to the Smyrneans, 8]

Also curious is his effusive greeting, unlike any other, to the Church of Rome. Maybe because Rome is the imperial capital. Or because Paul and Peter were martyred there.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, I wish abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
Letter to the Romans, Greeting]

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Another interesting sub-apostolic father is St. Clement of Rome, the third bishop of Rome. His First Letter to the Corinthians, generally considered to be written 95-96 AD, authoritatively addresses some problems that have broken out in the Corinthian church. Although the name of Clement does not appear in the text Irenaeus mentions the letter and ascribes it to Clement as do others in the early church.

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, . . .
Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 3]

Let us, then, give up those empty and futile aspirations and turn to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition (παραδοσεως).
[Clement of Rome, *First Epistle to the Corinthians

, 7]
James A Kleist, trans. in The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Christian Writers series)

“Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down (παραδοσεως) to us.” [J. B. Lightfoot, trans.]
Some translate the last part of the sentence “venerable rule of our holy calling.” But I’ve found no explanation as to why the Greek noun paradosis (meaning “tradition”) can be translated as “calling.” However there may be other information available of which I am unaware that could render the above translations debatable.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”
[Clement of Rome, *First Epistle to the Corinthians

, 42]
God willed to send Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel and Jesus to send the apostles to do likewise who in turn as per the past appointed successors.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.
[Clement of Rome, *First Epistle to the Corinthians

, 44]
Clement teaches that the apostles appointed successors to follow them in the office of the episcopate. Assuming they carry out their ministry in integrity the cannot be dismissed from the ministry.

 

[Koineman]

FYI: I plan to continue this series over on a new blog I started: churchfathersvoices.wordpress.com/. I think it will be a better venue. I don’t plan to continue it here.

I don’t have all the postings from here posted on that site yet, but I’m working on it.

Jeremy

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

FYI: I plan to continue this series over on a new blog I started: churchfathersvoices.wordpress.com/. I think it will be a better venue. I don’t plan to continue it here.

I don’t have all the postings from here posted on that site yet, but I’m working on it.

Jeremy

Looks good! Is it for others to participate in as well?

 

[jimmy]

First, we are not debating. This thread is not a debate.

Second, I think both Fr of Jazz and I understand that when we speak of tradition, we are referring to Sacred Tradition.

I agree: There is great variety among the CFs regarding the role of Scripture and tradition. As we have seen, Tertullian and Irenaeus ascribe great weight to the tradition of the church, whereas St. Cyril has a markedly different view.

Different people understand the term “sacred tradition” differently. If you read Cardinal Newman’s book on the development of doctrine, and then read Yves Congar’s books on Tradition you are going to get a very different sense of what Tradition is, even if they are compatible. If you are going to discuss whether the fathers supported tradition, you need to agree on what you mean by the word tradition. One definition might pass the test, another might fail.

 

[Goya]

I for one have no intention of following Koinemen to a different (his) blog/website, and I can’t help but wonder if the whole damn thread wasn’t a ploy to bait CAF readers to his new blog.

I say we keep this thing going right here–with or without K’man.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I for one have no intention of following Koinemen to a different (his) blog/website, and I can’t help but wonder if the whole damn thread wasn’t a ploy to bait CAF readers to his new blog.

I say we keep this thing going right here–with or without K’man.

The whole idea of the CFs teaching SS is too ludicrous to justify even this thread. I never saw anything of substance in this thread to support the silly notion. Some few isolated quotes, taken out of context is all that will ever be found.

 

[adf417]

Looks good! Is it for others to participate in as well?

Participation has not been the issue on this thread its the restrictions. I can’t help but think the new blog will be less rescrictive.

 

[Goya]

Participation has not been the issue on this thread its the restrictions. I can’t help but think the new blog will be less rescrictive.

What restrictions are you referring to?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Participation has not been the issue on this thread its the restrictions. I can’t help but think the new blog will be less rescrictive.

Well, I tried to engage in a dialogue on the subject there. But since I evaluate what he says and raise objections he considers me closed minded and he has refused to display my recent responses. Same old same old.

My take is he just wants to read and think through the issue of the ECFs on his own. He really can’t take in deeper investigation of his premises or assessments by others. When he has come to some conclusions perhaps he’ll share that with us and be open to peer review to test them.

 

[adf417]

What restrictions are you referring to?

Not allowing hermeneutics into an exploration of this magnitude. Fr of Jazz has been very kind and patient trying to “explore” the ECF’s with this restriction.

 

[Goya]

Not allowing hermeneutics into an exploration of this magnitude. Fr of Jazz has been very kind and patient trying to “explore” the ECF’s with this restriction.

Thank you.

 

[Goya]

Well, I tried to engage in a dialogue on the subject there. But since I evaluate what he says and raise objections he considers me closed minded and he has refused to display my recent responses. Same old same old.

…

He didn’t post your replies?!?!?

I’m shocked…shocked, I tell you!