G
GKC
Guest
Among 3-4 other oft seen subjects.GKC at one point recommended I save posts to be used at a later time. He seems to have the same need concerning Anglican orders and Apostolicae Curae.
Jon
GKC
- Status
GKC
J
jmcrae
Guest
The beliefs of the Waldensians, the Lollards, and the Hussites were nothing at all like what Luther proposed, and nor do they have very much in common with any form of modern Protestantism.
There is neither time nor space to get into the kind of detail that I want, but what I recommend is that you look into what each of these groups were proposing, and ask yourself, âWhat form of Protestantism today is proposing this?â
Also, no one from any of these groups would have considered himself to be proposing a new religion; they saw themselves as Catholics.
G
GKC
Guest
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Right on Memaw:thumbsup:
P
phil19034
Guest
I will let someone who has more info regarded Church Fathers answer this, but these church fathers were not teaching what we Catholics call Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide.
Again, the heresy of Sola Scriptura is placing Scripture ABOVE Sacred Tradition. Catholic believe they are equal in weight.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
If we continue to read further on in book three we donât see the church being neglected or regarded as a lesser authority. Rather Iraneaus in his against heresies argues that it is because of church tradition in the most ancient churches we can be certain of the truths we have against the gnostics who maintained they had a secret knowledge of the apostles or Jesus given to them.
"1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, âBut we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.â And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
Iraneaus doesnât merely appeal to the scripture against them, as if that were the only authority but to the tradition which is scripture and the oral teachings of the church preserved by the succession of presbyters.
- But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition." Book Three against heresies.
It is also difficult to suggest Iraneaus would have viewed the church as unnecessary for salvation and say the bible alone is necessary. As mentioned before the second century Christians lived in a climate of possible persecution and were very secretive as to what they did when they gathered. Could one merely obtain a bible and proclaim Iraneaus and his apostolic succession heretical and wrong and also the early second century Christian emphasis on doing works to please God (if you desire references I can provide for these are abundant in them) and as it were earn salvation in a certain sense (for they did not have sola fide)? No. One had to be part of the Christian community which Iraneaus boasts everywhere testifies to his creed in an earlier book, I believe book two if I recall. Such a dynamic of sola scripture being used to judge the church, I dare say wasnât contemplated.To judge other heretics yes, wrong practices yes, but the church itself? No.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Basil is one my favourite fathers and he says a lot more. Basil was a master of the bible of which there is no doubt, that he viewed is as the great justification for his faith. He however is also a great defender of the church and her tradition.
In Against Eunomius he responds to the statement of Eunomius that I will also quote thusly.
*(1.3) Above all I implore you, both my current audience and those who will read this work later: do not attempt to distinguish truth from falsehood by numbers, associating what is better with the majority party; do not cloud your judgements by focusing on positions of dignity; do not close your ears to those who come after by giving more attention to the contingent of those who have gone before. *
What are you saying? That we should not give more attention to those who have gone before? That we should not respect the multitude of those who are currently Christians and those who have been Christians from the Time when the gospel was first proclaimed? That we should not consider the honour of those enlightened with manifold spirit gifts? You have indeed inaugurated this road of impiety as an act of hatred and hostility against people such as these! Or should each of us do this: Shut the eyes of our soul once and for all, banish from our mind the memory of every saint, and then each of us take his own heart now empty and swept clean and hand it over to your misleading and sophistical arguments? You indeed have obtained great authority, if it turned out that by a word of command you obtained what the devil could not attain by his various wiles! Further more, if we are persuaded by you, we would have to judge the tradition that has prevailed in every time past due to so many saints as of less worth than you impious fabrication. In addition, he is not only satisfied with snatching away the thoughts of his current audience, but he also expects those who will later read his treatise to hold the same opinion. What arrogance! He things that his treatise will endure for posterity and that his memory will be cherished as immortal for all time to come!
Is Basil concerned with what the scripture says? Absolutely? Would he maintain the tradition outside of the bible is merely helpful? In an ultimate sense unnecessary? Absolutely not. What else does he say?
"Now it is a lie that the expression, âwith whomâ, is foreign to pious custom. Those who are steadfast prefer the august ways of old to novelty, and those who keep the tradition authentic to the Fathers, whether in the country or the city, use this expression. They are the ones who have had enough of customs, who disparage the old ways as out of date, and who have taken on the attitude of revolutionaries. They are like worldy persons who esteem constant variation in clothing over common dress⌠Our fathers then, were saying this, and we say it: the glory is common to the Father and the Son and so we offer the doxology to the Father and the Son.
That is the tradition of our fathers, though, it is not sufficient for us, for they followed the meaning of the scripture and had as a source the very proof texts that I presented to you from Scripture a little earlier.
On the Holy spirit, Chapter Seven
For Basil the scripture is the Great authority to which all Christians agree and determine right doctrine from. It is the fundamental source of true doctrines which do effect salvation. This is universal to Christendom, but the idea that the scripture was all that was necessary, that the fathers before hand are not to adhered to in matters of doctrine and practice would have likewise been alien for Basil who was a Bishop in succession of the Episcopate at Caeserea. These quotes by Iraneaus and Basil are not evidence of sola scriptura, they are evidence of a particular emphasis and not the doctrine which came to exist much later in the 16th century.
D
dronald
Guest
Iâm very interested in what these men taught thatâs so far from what I believe; especially Peter Waldo.
Exactly.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Guanophore, Iâve said this before, but I think Catholic posters here often overestimate how common that understanding of SS is among Evangelicals. To the best of my knowledge, Restorationist churches such as the Church of Christ might use that definition. Among most Evangelicals in my experience and reading the understanding of SS is much more nuanced that what Catholics seem to think SS means.
Iâm an artist. I often need to square up my materialsâwood, silver, glass, paper, mat board, etc. I canât get a true square or rectangle without first squaring up one corner from which I then reference all the other corners. For that initial ârectifyingâ, I use a known perfect right angle try square (made in the USA of steel
). After laying out my square or rectangle, I use the diagonal measurements as a backup test for squareness. Because I have a truly ârectifiedâ try square, Iâll never get a contradiction between the two squaring methods (try square and equal diagonal measurements) unless Iâve been careless myself. Still, using that try square, and in fact repeatedly testing all my smaller, less expensive try squares against that one, is my âSola Try Squareâ means of ânormingâ or ârectifyingâ my angles. All other means and all other try squares are subject to that single try square, again, confirmed by measuring diagonals before I make a cut. ( My dad was, as a matter of fact, a Jewish carpenter.
; Iâve heard âMeasure twice, cut onceâ more times than I can count.)So okay, I think as Catholics you would say, Scripture and Tradition and the Church are equal in authority, like me using my expensive try square and also measuring diagonalsâthey never contradict each other in reality? But as an Evangelical, I would say that when they do appear to be in conflict, a single means of rectification must be given precedenceâhence, only the Bible is the ultimate try square. Other tools are useful and needed in fact, but subject to that try square.
A
adrift
Guest
They wrote what they believed? There were 12 Apostles. Yet we only have four Gospels. Only two Gospels were written by Apostles. Some of the letters were written by Apostles but not all of the Apostles wrote. That is not surprising since Jesus commanded them to go and teach not go and write.
I donât remember scripture that states all that Jesus taught was in Scripture or a verse which states that they only believed what a few wrote
. The Scripture that comes to mind is And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Amen!
G
guanophore
Guest
It is a recognition and affirmation of some basic realities:
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, âin this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Churchâfor which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.â The ruptures that wound the unity of Christâs Bodyâhere we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schismâdo not occur without human sin: (2089)
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
818 âHowever, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.⌠All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.â (1271)
819 âFurthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truthâ are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: âthe written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.â Christâs Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to âCatholic unity.â276 Catechism of the Catholic Church
- In order to qualify as a heretic, a person must have known and believed, ,then willfully rejected. Modern Protestants rarely meet this criteria. 2- Baptism is considered valid even when administered by a non-Christian, so it the Church must accept trinitarian baptism. 3) The Holy Spirit is clearly at work in these communities.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
In post 40, St. Basil the Great was attempted to be put forth as teaching sola Scriptura.
If what was meant, is the material sufficiency of Scripture, I will not object. But if what was meant is the formal sufficiency of Scripture, I will take issue.
Below (quote used in post 40), St. Basil is actually fighting with heretics who deny the Holy Trinity calling HIM a heretic!
St. Basil said let the Scriptures speak for themselves. But he is NOT asserting sola scriptura.
I often do this too when discussing faith issues with people who differ with me (âlook at the Scriptures, let them decide for usâ).
But you cannot conclude from my statement, that I am trying to affirm sola Scriptura.
As a matter of fact, St. Basil appeals to his âcustomâ as well as the Scriptures in the very same quote. But the people he was arguing with did not accept his authority. So he was forced to appeal to what they BOTH had in commonâthe Scriptures. Notice the deniers of the Trinity had Scripture too.
Back to the St. Basil quote. The Scriptures do NOT talk about âthree hypostasesâ explicitly that he evidently WAS already teaching!
The Scriptures DO affirm the Holy Trinity, but only IMPLICITLY. Yes it still can be found implicitly in Scripture and that was St. Basilâs point. The âcustomâ he was arguing against was the custom of denying the Holy Trinity. The deniers were charging HIM with innovation and HE (St. Basil) was likewise charging THEM with innovation. Here again is what he actually said:
ST. BASIL THE GREAT What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)
St. Basil also says other things that were unfortunately not quoted in post 40. Things that suggest St. Basil MAY (or may not) assert the material sufficiency of Scripture, but nothing that suggests St. Basil asserts the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.
St. Basil says this for example . . . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT As for us, besides this open war of heretics, that, in addition, which has been raised by those who have the appearance of being orthodox, has reduced the churches to the last degree of weakness. For which reason we stand in special need of assistance from you (the bishops of the west), to the end that they who profess the Apostolic Faith, having done away with the schisms which they have invented, may henceforward be subjected to the authority of the Church.
(T.iii.P.i.Ep.xcii. ad. Ital. et Gall. p. 266; quoted in: The Faith of Catholics, pg. 58).
St. Basil ALSO says this (below) for example. Another quote that tells us St. Basil did not assert the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term.
âThe Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]
And many Bible-only Christians would assert the following is âun-Biblicalâ . . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT âWhat is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for âhe that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.â What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.â
If what was meant, is the material sufficiency of Scripture, I will not object. But if what was meant is the formal sufficiency of Scripture, I will take issue.
Below (quote used in post 40), St. Basil is actually fighting with heretics who deny the Holy Trinity calling HIM a heretic!
St. Basil said let the Scriptures speak for themselves. But he is NOT asserting sola scriptura.
I often do this too when discussing faith issues with people who differ with me (âlook at the Scriptures, let them decide for usâ).
But you cannot conclude from my statement, that I am trying to affirm sola Scriptura.
As a matter of fact, St. Basil appeals to his âcustomâ as well as the Scriptures in the very same quote. But the people he was arguing with did not accept his authority. So he was forced to appeal to what they BOTH had in commonâthe Scriptures. Notice the deniers of the Trinity had Scripture too.
Back to the St. Basil quote. The Scriptures do NOT talk about âthree hypostasesâ explicitly that he evidently WAS already teaching!
The Scriptures DO affirm the Holy Trinity, but only IMPLICITLY. Yes it still can be found implicitly in Scripture and that was St. Basilâs point. The âcustomâ he was arguing against was the custom of denying the Holy Trinity. The deniers were charging HIM with innovation and HE (St. Basil) was likewise charging THEM with innovation. Here again is what he actually said:
ST. BASIL THE GREAT What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)
St. Basil also says other things that were unfortunately not quoted in post 40. Things that suggest St. Basil MAY (or may not) assert the material sufficiency of Scripture, but nothing that suggests St. Basil asserts the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.
St. Basil says this for example . . . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT As for us, besides this open war of heretics, that, in addition, which has been raised by those who have the appearance of being orthodox, has reduced the churches to the last degree of weakness. For which reason we stand in special need of assistance from you (the bishops of the west), to the end that they who profess the Apostolic Faith, having done away with the schisms which they have invented, may henceforward be subjected to the authority of the Church.
(T.iii.P.i.Ep.xcii. ad. Ital. et Gall. p. 266; quoted in: The Faith of Catholics, pg. 58).
St. Basil ALSO says this (below) for example. Another quote that tells us St. Basil did not assert the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term.
âThe Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]
And many Bible-only Christians would assert the following is âun-Biblicalâ . . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT âWhat is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for âhe that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.â What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.â
- âThe Moralsâ, St. Basil the Great, Ch. 22
G
guanophore
Guest
Thank you HH, great quotes! There are many such references in the Fathers regarding the value of Scripture, but all of them were written by Catholics. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts Sacred Tradition because they both come from the same source.
About St. Basilâs reference to âlet scripture decideâ I donât think he was cognizant when he wrote that of the ramifications. Scripture cannot âdecideâ, as this activity requires a person. Deciding is an act of will and judgment, and requires the ability to take responsibility for consequences. Discernment, required to make such decisions, is not a quality of the Holy Scriptures.
This is the greatest error of forcing the Scriptures into a role they were never meant to play. Although authorative, they cannot be a final âruleâ because it requires a person to make a judgment. What happens is that each person becomes their own ârulerâ or judge of the meaning of the Scriptures.
G
guanophore
Guest
Luther also saw himself as Catholic.
G
guanophore
Guest
What a great analogy Abide! Yes it is necessary to have a reliable rule. Catholics believe this is the Church Christ founded, ensouled and guided by His Holy Spirit. His Church produced the Scriptures, and since the Apostolic tradition and the Holy writings come from the same Source, there cannot be a contradiction between them. Therefore, if there seems âthey do appear to be in conflictâ then it is the perception of the reader that is off the bubble.
As I am sure you are aware, having been at CAF for many years, Catholics consider Sacred Tradition to be the lens through which the Scriptures are understood. When one reads the product (theopneustos writngs) of the Apostolic kerygma without the perspective of those who wrote it, one can easily lose the meaning.
G
guanophore
Guest
They certainly wrote what they believed.They wrote what they believed? There were 12 Apostles. Yet we only have four Gospels. Only two Gospels were written by Apostles. Some of the letters were written by Apostles but not all of the Apostles wrote. That is not surprising since Jesus commanded them to go and teach not go and write.
I donât remember scripture that states all that Jesus taught was in Scripture or a verse which states that they only believed what a few wrote
They never tried to write ALL of what they believed. The modern heresy that the NT contains âeverythingâ is extremely problematic, and seems to have been invented as a way of driving a wedge between the Scriptures, and the Church that produced them. The writers and users of the writings in the early centuries always considered this condition heretical.
A
adrift
Guest
Totally agree. What I disagreed with is that ALL the Apostles wrote what they believed. I thought that was clear. As the old saying goes clear as mud.
A
andrewstx
Guest
There are few, if any Waldensians left, they mostly went into Calvinism. The foundress of
Seventh Day Adventism claims they were early SDAs. But that is incorrect as are most of Ellen Whites âpropheciesâ. I think that the Hussites became part of the Anglican Church of England.
- Status