I have been in "Catholic Answers" forums site for awhile among a post called "Jesus was not present in the bread and wine of the early church." Well everyone got on to the topic about the Church Fathers. One Protestant and anti-Catholic was claiming that the Fathers obviously believed in "sola scriptura" because they did not agree on everything. Even though they were much more "Catholic" than Protestant, they still used their own interpretations for their beliefs within scripture which as the antiCatholic believes, shows that they were for the "Bible alone" doctrine because they were not "one" as the Catholic Church claims it is today.

What are your responses on this anyone? How true is it because I'm not an expert on the Church Fathers?

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005

Answers

bump

-- (buimp@b.ump), January 14, 2005.

Hi Jason,

The Church fathers believed in reading the divine scripture through the eyes of the church.

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199),in ANF,I:508

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, ùa man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian,On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy." Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,7:16 (post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:553-554

"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God." Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392

"For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet to be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot's lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:2 (A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:19

"And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church's preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine." Hilary of Poitiers,On the Trinity,12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:227

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,I:37(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328

"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency." Basil,EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb....It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments." Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378

"Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation, ' applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?" Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384),in NPNF2,V:162

"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued;" Augustine,On the Gospel of John,Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416 et 417),NPNFI,VII:117

"If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19) " Maximinus(Arch-Arian Heretic),Debate with Maximinus,1 (c.A.D. 428),in AAOH,188

"Therefore, as I said above, if you had been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy you please, you might shelter yourself under the example of your parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair, and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism." Cassian,John,Incarnation of the Lord,6:5 (c.A.D. 429/430),in NPNF2,XI:593-594

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,2:4 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132

"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,ùif there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,ùthis, and nothing else,ùshe has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,23:59 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:148-149

"[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers...." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,24:63 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:150

"His (Nestorius) first attempt at innovation was, that the holy Virgin, who bore the Word of God, who took flesh of her, ought not to be confessed to be the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ; though of old, yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him." Theodoret of Cyrus,Compendium of Heretics' Fables,12 (c.A.D. 453),in FOC,I:449

*********

The above quotes were found at this website http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm which also contains much much more concerning Catholic TRADITION and scripture.

It also has some great quotes from the fathers concerning the folly of "private interpretation."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2005.

The Church Fathers were theologians. The function of theologians is to study doctrinal and scriptural issues and to propose interpretations thereof for consideration by the Magisterium. Once having done so they submit to the infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium, whether it incorporates their proposed ideas or not. This system results in growth in understanding of essential issues over time, without sacrificing essential unity of belief. It is a far cry from sola scriptura, where each theologian insists that his own interpretation is the correct one because he, not any higher authority, is guided by the Holy Spirit. He is in submission to no higher authority, and if his interpretations are rejected he simply takes them with him when he leaves and founds his own church. This system results in loss of understanding of essential issues over time, at the expense of essential unity of belief.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

Paul;

Within the Reformation Churches (Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican) that same process was followed. A continuing misunderstanding that is repeated in these threads is that Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, or some other individual “started” a Church. While the Catholic participants of these boards along with other Catholic writers often make such statement – it is for the most part, untrue.

In my own denomination (Reformed Church in America – Dutch origins) there is no confession or allegiance made to John Calvin and no writings of Calvin are part of our Standards of Unity to which we confess as faithful witnesses to the scriptures. They include the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and the Reformed Confessions (Heidelberg Catechism – 1563, Belgic Confession 1561, and the Canons of Dort 1619). The Presbyterians followed the Westminster Confession and Swiss Reformed established the Helvetic Confessions.

No doubt the writings of Calvin were influential, but these national church councils created or affirmed the above documents. To my knowledge (I may be wrong about the Swiss Reformed Church), there are no writings by Calvin that are part of any Reformed Church’s constitution. Thus, Calvin, the theologian, was vetted by the gathered church councils. Obviously, you question the authority of those councils, but the process was similar to the acceptance of the early Church Father’s writings… including the sending of representatives (bishops, ministers, elders) locally chosen to represent the congregations.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 14, 2005.

Robert,

I understand that formation of a new church was not generally the conscious intent of the principle "Reformers". However, history reveals after the fact that this was indeed the eventual effect of their actions. While the current churches that have evolved from their teachings may not pay specific or direct allegiance to them, they do follow the foundational principles first introduced by specific "reformers", who therefore can rightfully be considered the founders of such churches, even if that was not their original intent.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

Paul;

Perhaps I am not being clear about the language...

Calvin influenced and the Christian communities acted during the Reformation the same way the Enlightenment Philosophers influenced and the Continental Congress acted on July 4, 1776.

…or while Milton Friedman taught economics to Pete Peterson, Pete Peterson acted on that knowledge and created his wealth.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 15, 2005.

Robert, it wasn’t “the Christian Communities” who started the protestant churches. Luther, Calvin, Knox etc. stated (not humbly submitting their personal opinions, but arrogantly declaring) that certain beliefs are true. The great majority of Christians REJECTED these novel beliefs and continued following the guidance of the successors of the Apostles. The minority of Christians who decided to believe the novel teachings then formed themselves into rival churches. You make it sound as if all the Christians of Switzerland etc. got together and decided what were the true Christian beliefs. Wrong. The only reason people even WENT to these unauthorized conventions was because they ALREADY believed the teachings of Luther, Calvin etc, but (as is inevitable once they accepted the idea of trying to re-invent Christianity by private interpretation of the Bible alone) argued endlessly among themselves and so wanted to come to some kind of agreement with each other. The majority of Christians who continued to hold the Apostolic faith, were barred from these conventions. (In contrast, the true Apostolic Church invited the protestants to send delegates to the authorized Council of Trent to present their case for reform of the Church. They refused to come!)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 16, 2005.

Bravo, Steve ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.

Steven;

I am not clear on the point that you are making…

Are you saying that the people were coerced into the Reformation Churches? I wouldn’t deny there were incidents of such abuse – on both sides. However, since the Catholic and Reformation Churches were not solely organizations of conscience but of territory as well, often where a person lived had effected which church they could freely attend.

Or are you saying that there were too few theologians affirming the principles of the Reformation

1-Scripture as ultimate rule of faith and practice,

2-Scripture was self evident and to use the vernacular in worship and teaching,

3-The order of salvation had faith and justification precede sanctification [works],

4- Baptism and communion were the sole sacraments instituted by Christ,

5- The bread and wine of communion were for all professing Christians,

6-Decisions affecting the greater church were to be made by council decisions….

Or are you saying that those who gathered into the Reformation congregations made their decisions by council (classis, presbytery, or synod) in order to agree?

On that last matter, Reformation congregations simply followed the New Testament Church. (Acts 15:28)

However, if you believe there were too few people involved in articulating the biblical principles of the Reformation in comparison to the Catholic Church decision making process, I am not sure you want to use Trent as your example.

The first session of Trent began in 1545. Protestants were not invited as active participants. In fact, most Catholic bishops didn’t show up (31 to begin with and 270 by the last session in 1563 – out of 700 a little under 39%). Italian bishops (supporting the centralization of power in Rome) far outnumbered the bishops from the European countries where the Reformation had its greatest influence.

That first session decided: 1) Scripture and tradition were to be of equal authority - this denied the fundamental Protestant belief that the Bible alone was the basis of Christian belief.

2) The Catholic Church was to have the sole right in interpreting the Bible and the authority of the Vulgate was asserted over Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

3) Good works to assure salvation were upheld.

4) The seven sacraments were "absolutely necessary channels of divine salvation."

5) Communion in both kinds was forbidden except by express permission of the pope.

It was Charles V who insisted that Protestants be invited to the second session of Trent in 1551. After seeing how the first council was dominated by the Italian bishops (predominately loyal to the Italian Pope), they wanted two parameters on the way the agenda would be addressed:

1) All bishops should be relieved from an oath of obedience to the Papacy.

2) The authority of the councils should be made superior to the Papacy.

Needles to say, those parameters were not accepted by the pope. I would suggest that Trent insured the establishment of the Reformation rather than diminish its influence.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 17, 2005.

"On that last matter, Reformation congregations simply followed the New Testament Church. (Acts 15:28)"

Someone has been pulling your chain, Pastor Bob, with all do respect. Your whole synopsis gives one the impression that churches already existed, and then quiet organized groups of councils held meetings and came to various concensus on varying matters -- sort of like board meetings replete with presidents, vice presidents, boards, secretaries and minutes.

Luther's 95 theses sparked a powder keg that set off bloody feuds all across Europe for centuries. There was nothing orderly, businesslike, and gentlemenly about it. These men saw an opportunity to seize followers and they took it at the cost of millions of lives.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2005.

Dear Gail;

No, that’s not what I am saying.

What I am saying is there was enough of the beginning of the Enlightenment and liberal (small ‘l’) Christian theology supported in places like France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands… along with the desire for significant reforms in the operations and quality of the Catholic Church... along with the demand for political and religious self determination… that resonated with the people and gave traction to the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the rest.

The congregations and national church councils and synods that formed were done so in the context of all of the above.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 18, 2005.

Robert,

I think you are saying that given the conditions during the enlightenment, the political situations existing in other parts of Europe, that reformation would have occurred even without Luther or Calvin.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 18, 2005.

Dear Jim;

I usually don’t speculate about alternative histories (What if JFK was not assassinated? What if Lindbergh was elected president?) I leave that to novelists. But, I think history has shown in other dramatic cultural and political shifts that if the social, political, and religious environment had not been in place, Luther and the rest would have been talking, but few would have been motivated to act.

Catholic scholars interpret that reality as proof that the Reformation was little more than a political revolt against the Holy Roman Empire. Protestant scholars interpret the same reality as a sign of God’s hand in history working through the Holy Spirit to liberate the Christ’s Church.

The only place speculation works is towards the future. If there was an attempt to encourage an ecumenical dialogue among all Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant), what would be open to discussion? What would be closed to debate? I have a feeling the second list would far outweigh the first. But, that's just speculation.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 18, 2005.

I think your last point is probably true. I'm not near my reference books but if my memory is intact, (doubtful) this even happened between Zwingli and Luther. I think Luther was appalled about certain parts of Zwingli's vision, and the discussion was closed as far as Luther was concerned.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 18, 2005.