When Do Protestants Know When to Return to Rome?

>> you do have odd tastes in "non-Catholic" defenders! First, St. Augustine; and now, St. Irenaeus! I half-expect you to quote from Pope St. Pius V, next!<<

I didn’t say that I agreed with everything they said. When debating a Catholic isn’t it wise to point out that even their own Church Fathers differ with what the Church teaches today? Simply, my contention is that today’s Catholic Church has strayed from original teachings of their own Church Fathers.

>>Are you quite sure you'd like St. Irenaues as your "champion"?<<

To call him by “champion” would be in error. A source for information when debating a Catholic would suffice. Irenaeus contention with the Gnostics was that they were not relying on Scripture and he was adamant that anything the Church taught should be supported by Scripture as were many early Church Fathers.

There is also a difference in Sola Scriptura and interpretation of Scripture. >> for anyone to suggest that St. Irenaeus was advocating "sola scriptura" by this quote, they'd have to assume that he was referring solely to the Old Testament. You don't mean that, do you?<<

I would differ with you on that. The New Testament was not codified as a whole but the writings and etters of the Apostles were certainly available and considered the Scripture of the day.

Sola Scriptura II Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[Scripture is not separate from tradition. They were told to hold to the traditions whether they were taught by word or letter (scripture)]

Roman Catholics maintain that if you only keep to the Written Apostolic Tradition, you haven’t got the whole Word of God! You’ve got to have the Oral Apostolic Tradition as well. Well, there’s just a huge logical fallacy involved in that thinking! Because Paul doesn’t say, “Make sure you hold on to the oral traditions and to the written traditions,” does he? He says, “Hold fast to the traditions whether you heard them orally or in writing.” Can you see the difference there? Do you have one thing that comes to the Church in two ways? Or do you have two things that come to the Church?

Even our Lord Jesus Christ, when not appealing to His own inherent authority, clinched His arguments with His opponents by saying, “It stands written!” or “Have you not read” in the Bible? He said, “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me.” John 5:39 (ASV) In Jesus’ day, Jesus acknowledges that the appropriate approach to salvation was to search for it in the Scriptures! And you know, that in Jesus’ day, the scribes had about as much authority as has ever been given to human tradition. And yet, Jesus pointed them to the Scriptures, not to the oral tradition, not to the authority of the scribes, but to the Scriptures. And then He said, “The Scriptures bear witness of Me!”

In the New Testament, the “spirit of error” was to be identified by comparing whatever the prophets are saying to the teaching of the Apostles. In I John 4:6, the Apostle John says, “He who knows God hears us!” That’s the standard; what we have taught! In I Corinthians 14:37, Paul says, “If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” And yet, even the Apostles called for the Church to test their own instruction according to the written revelation of God, according to the Scriptures which were in hand.

Why did Paul commend the Bereans? What were the Bereans doing? In Acts 17:11, you’ll read of this commendation because (he says) “they examined the Scriptures daily whether these things were so,” i.e., the things taught by Paul. Paul commends that; and he’s an Apostle! He’s got ‘Power of Attorney’ for the Lord Jesus Christ. He speaks with the authority of the Savior Himself! And yet, even with that Apostolic authority, Paul commends them, because when they wanted to test what he was saying, they went to the written Scriptures to see if these things were so.

In I Corinthians 4:6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of the Protestant doctrine or principle of Sola Scriptura! I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

This is getting too long. Sorry.

CynicalBear:

Apologies for the length; but deep questions usually can't be answered sufficiently with sound-bytes. Use your judgment as to what time-commitment you want to make, in replying.

You wrote:

I didn’t say that I agreed with everything [the Church Fathers] said. When debating a Catholic isn’t it wise to point out that even their own Church Fathers differ with what the Church teaches today?

It would be wise to explain what you meant to prove by it, I think. Do you not know that the Church Fathers differed with each other on a great many things, insofar as the matter hadn't yet been settled by the Church Magisterium? (At which point, as St. Augustine said (in short): "The Apostolic See has pronounced on the matter; the cause is finished." That's how Church teaching gets settled.) That emphasizes precisely what I've been saying repeatedly: "Church Teaching" is not at all identical to "this-or-that teaching or opinion of any given Church Father, Saint, etc."

I'm really trying to understand your view, here. You seem to be suggesting, "A Church Father said this, so you're obligated to follow and believe it, and accept it as official Church teaching!" To which I'd reply: "Why on earth do you say that?" The writings of the Church Fathers are evaluated by Church Teaching; it's not the other way around. Does that clarify?

Simply, my contention is that today’s Catholic Church has strayed from original teachings of their own Church Fathers.

I'm not sure why you'd put it that way; why do you think that the Catholic Church would be obligated to follow every last pronouncement of every last Church Father (revered and venerated as they are) to the letter? If a Church Father was wrong on thus-and-so point, then they were wrong; it affects Church teaching (which is defined by the Church Magisterium--the entire body of bishops in union with the Pope) not one jot. I'd be careful about equivocating "teaching of [insert Saint/Doctor/Father, here]" with "Catholic teaching"; they're simply not the same, in general.

To call [St. Irenaeus] by “champion” would be in error. A source for information when debating a Catholic would suffice.

If you understand his message correctly, yes. That's where I think you have some difficulties; else, you would not be under the mistaken impression that St. Irennaeus taught "sola scriptura".

Irenaeus contention with the Gnostics was that they were not relying on Scripture

(*sigh*) All I can say is: READ the letter by St. Irenaeus, from beginning to end--especially the bit about "tradition" that I quoted, if you want a brief synopsis. My point is that, if you think St. Irenaeus is preaching "sola scriptura" (much less a Protestant mindset), you're very much mistaken. He's not. He couldn't be, and still affirm "that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches" (among countless other references to true Catholic teaching), and the like.

and he was adamant that anything the Church taught should be supported by Scripture as were many early Church Fathers.

First, you're equivocating "support" with "use exclusively" (Catholics applaud the first as wise, and condemn the second as heretical). Second, your claim (here) is simply not true. (See above.) Third, unless you're willing to claim some sort of infallibility for St. Irenaeus, your claim (even if it were true) would be quite irrelevant; until an idea is explicitly condemned by the Church, its members are usually free to entertain (within reason) that idea, whether it's right or wrong. The fact that St. Irenaeus believes [x] says nothing especially about whether [x] is truly taught as dogma by the Catholic Church. (And again: I assert that it is your interpretation, rather than the comments of St. Irenaeus, which are in error.)

There is also a difference in Sola Scriptura and interpretation of Scripture.

I daresay. Interpretation of Scripture requires that one go "beyond what is written", by definition.

That's a key problem with your quote of 1 Corinthians 4:6, by the way: it's painfully vague, and one needs to "go beyond what is written" in order to understand what "not going beyond what is written" means in this particular case. For example: what body of writing is being referenced? The OT? That particular letter to the Corinthians? Anything that might happen to be written down in the future? (Keep in mind that 2 Corinthians hadn't been written yet, at least; would they be allowed to go beyond that? Could they go beyond the Book of Revelation, which wasn't to be written for another 50-60 years?) The comment by St. Paul is quite sufficient for its local purpose (i.e. to give specific direction to a specific local Church, at a specific time, for a specific reason), but any attempt to "universalize" it neutralizes it and makes it nonsensical.

The New Testament was not codified as a whole but the writings and etters of the Apostles were certainly available and considered the Scripture of the day.

The writings were sporadically available, but it would be quite false to say, without strong qualifiers, that "they were considered the Scripture of the day". St. Paul's letter to the Romans was considered Scripture by many. So was the Shepherd of Hermas, and The Book of Jubilees, and innumerable others. Surely you see the problem? You simply can't state that the current canon "was considered the Scripture of the Day", as if that settled the matter; the matter is hardly begun! Else, why not quote the book of Jubilees 2:1 as authoritatively as one would Romans 8:28?

II Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[Scripture is not separate from tradition. They were told to hold to the traditions whether they were taught by word or letter (scripture)]

No one is suggesting that they're "separate" (i.e. divorced from each other)--least of all, Catholics; but I do claim that they're *distinct* (i.e. not identical). Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both convey the Divine Revelation of God; but some of that Revelation was handed down outside of Sacred Scripture (i.e. Biblical books), as St. Paul makes quite clear, in this very verse. Perhaps you think that Sacred Tradition will somehow contradict Sacred Scripture? I assure you, that is not the case.

Roman Catholics maintain that if you only keep to the Written Apostolic Tradition, you haven’t got the whole Word of God! You’ve got to have the Oral Apostolic Tradition as well.

Of course. Jesus (Who Is the Word of God--cf. John 1:1, etc.) is the sum-total of Divine Revelation ;and His Self-revelation was made orally and in writing... but orally, first. You do realize that the Gospels were not written down instantly, don't you? The first Gospel (Matthew) probably wasn't written until at least 10-15 years after Christ ascended into Heaven, and the last book (Revelation) probably wasn't written until about 100 A.D.; and this is beyond the fact that the NT wasn't "canonized" until the late 300's A.D. To put it briefly: Sacred Scripture is the portions of Sacred Tradition that God willed to have written down at a specific time, in a specific way. In no way does this make the "not-in-the-Bible" portions of Sacred Tradition extraneous.

Well, there’s just a huge logical fallacy involved in that thinking! Because Paul doesn’t say, “Make sure you hold on to the oral traditions and to the written traditions,” does he? He says, “Hold fast to the traditions whether you heard them orally or in writing.” Can you see the difference there?

It depends on what you mean. Can I see the difference between Tradition which was written down in the Bible (i.e. Scripture) and the Tradition which was not (i.e. Sacred Tradition, proper)? Yes. Can I see any contradiction between them? No. Can I see St. Paul saying, "The traditions which I shared by word of mouth were exactly the same traditions which I have shared, or will share, in inpired Scripture"? No. If you see where St. Paul *is* saying that, you'll need to show me.

Take an example: suppose I wanted to share with you the first ten counting numbers. Verbally, I tell you, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and I'll give you the rest in writing." Later, I write you a letter which states, "Picking up from '5': 6, 7, 8, 9, 10." There is overlapping content (i.e. "5"), but there is also information in one which isn't in the other. And yet, if I say, "See that you use the counting numbers which I shared with you, whether orally or in writing", it would be illogical (and incorrect) of you to assume that "oral content" = "written content". They both addressed the same content, in general; but they both mentioned different specifics; they supplemented and completed one another.

Do you have one thing that comes to the Church in two ways? Or do you have two things that come to the Church?

We have one thing (the Sacred Deposit of Faith, a.k.a. God's Divine Self-Revelation) that comes to us in two different forms (written and unwritten), though the forms include different portions of that content.

So... could you explain the alleged "fallacy"? I don't see it.

>>It would be wise to explain what you meant to prove by it, I think.<<

The discussion was the view of using only Scripture to prove the validity of teaching. Irenaeus was rather adamant that the Gnostics did not, but used “other” sources such as word of mouth. One of my problems with anything entrusted to word of mouth is that human nature tends to change the story over time and between cultures. I believe the intent of the Apostles and, in this case Irenaeus, was to ensure that correct teaching should always be proven by the written record. I used Irenaeus, and others, because many of the apologetic writers use them

The Church is not infallible but all tradition and teaching must be subject to the final authority of Scripture. Scripture is the sole and final arbiter of truth, infallible and the ultimate authority.

It is not uncommon in Roman Catholic apologetic literature to quote Irenaeus as confirmation of their concept of tradition. For example, under the heading of Sacred Tradition is a True Source of Revelation, listed in the Doctrinal Index of his book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, William Jurgens cites him to support this point of view. Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, in Not By Scripture Alone, also quotes Irenaeus.

Clearly, then, Roman Catholics employ the teaching of Irenaeus to support their own doctrine of tradition—doctrine which they claim is handed down orally from the apostles and is independent of Scripture. This position, however, is untenable when the teaching of Irenaeus is interpreted in context.

The quote they use is preceded by a lengthy statement defining what Irenaeus meant by tradition.

That passage reads:

“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”

Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he calls this faith from the apostles and their disciples. He then goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are primarily the cardinal truths of the Creed. And this faith, and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls the tradition. He puts it this way:

“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith...For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.”

So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith. Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture.

Unless you are unflinching in your belief and unwilling to investigate I would suggest you do more research. I might suggest prayer for guidance as I do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.