Roman Catholic theologian, Louis Bouyer, likewise confirms this, writing:
it is right to insist that this narrow ‘biblicism’ is by no means to be confused with the affirmation that the Bible, and in one sense the Bible alone, is the ‘Word of God’ more directly and fully than any of its other expressions, since it alone is so inspired by God as to have him for its author. In making their own this assertion, and giving it the vigour and emphasis so characteristic of their doctrine, the Protestant reformers did not go beyond the unanimous verdict of Judaism on the Old Testament, once constituted, and of the Fathers and theologians on the Bible as a whole. The cautious reservations introduced by modern Catholic writers, as a result of the controversies of the sixteenth century, cannot disguise the fact that the Protestants, in the positive statements we refer to, say no more than the unanimous ecclesiastical tradition
The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine above all, themselves practiced that devotion derived from Scripture, whose ideal the Protestants steadily upheld; they hardly knew any other. No doubt they were much more careful than many Protestants not to isolate the Word of God in its settled form of Scripture from its living form in the Church, particularly in the liturgy. But, this reserve apart they were no less enthusiastic, or insistent, or formal, in recommending this use of Scripture and in actually promoting it. Particularly from St. John Chrysostom, one might assemble exhortations and injunctions couched in the most forcible terms; they have often been recalled by those Protestants, from the sixteenth century onwards, the best grounded in Christian antiquity. It would be impossible to find, even among Protestants, statements more sweeping than those in which St. Jerome abounds: Ignoratio scripturarum, ignoratio Christi is doubtless the most lapidary, but not necessarily the most explicit.
What is more, in this case just as when the authority of Scripture is viewed as the foundation of theology, the constant practice of the Church, in the Middle Ages as well as in the patristic times, is a more eloquent witness than all the doctors. In the same way that Popes, Councils, theologians, always resorted to the scriptural argument as the really fundamental one, the practice of the great spiritual writers of every epoch attests the fully traditional character of a devotion based on the Bible. Writers as eminent and influential as Origen in the East and Augustine in the West equally prove the truth of this. Their entire spirituality in both cases is but an immense meditation on Scripture. The same is true of the great teachers of the Middle Ages, who often enough are disciples of both, as was St. Bernard. We can apply to them all that we said of the best of Protestant spirituality: not only did they know the Bible and make abundant use of it, but they moved in it as in a spiritual world that formed the habitual universe of all their thoughts and sentiments. For them, it was not simply one source among others, but the source par excellence, in a sense the only one.
Do you have a link so that I can see this in context? Otherwise, I have no idea what “narrow ‘biblicism’” Bouyer was talking about.
Note the MANNER in which Bouyer speaks - he is not "disagreeing with me" - he speaks of how the Bible alone is more fully and directly the Word of God compared to its other expressions (i.e. Tradition, Magisterium) and even then only "in one sense". This is nuanced theological writing.
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church were far more immersed in Scripture than most Catholics are today, and I would even suggest more than most Protestants are today. Full Stop.
What that DOES NOT mean is that they were subscribing to "Sola Scriptura." They had the Councils, and held to their teachings as authoritative, EVEN when they had to solve the problems that arose BY LOOKING OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example - that Christians believe in a Triune God is clear from Scripture; however, to contend with the Arian heresy that arose (among others) that sought to detract from Christ's divinity, or from others which sought to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or sought to say that the three Persons were simply three "masks" of the one God, it was necessary to draw from sources outside of Scripture. Likewise, writers as early as Clement (ca. 96) and Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 150) were already describing the See of Rome in a manner which seems to give it primacy over the others.
Given that Bouyer's book "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism" was printed in 1956, and that the Index of Forbidden Books was still in use, I think that we would have heard something about it if he were advocating that the Church was actually wrong.
I think it would make far more sense to view Bouyer's statement in light of this discussion on the whole work: Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation. It discusses some of the things that Protestantism got right, and others that Protestantism got wrong.
I saw what you said upthread about having been raised Catholic. I don't know what happened that caused you to leave, but remember that you are always, ALWAYS welcome back.
You are in my prayers.
Sigh, it is scripture AND tradition. Not sola scriptura.
As for Beckwith, I’m a ‘revert’ as well. The problems that divided Catholics and evangelicals originally no longer exist.
The problem is that m whatever Luther or Calvin meant by sola Scriptura, which was their grounds for rejecting the authority of Rome, “biblicism” almost at once
became the dominant view among radical reformers such as the anabaptists. Luther raved against this tendency but was helpless to prevent it, which is why he had to resort to the secular authority against it. In rejecting the papacy, he
forgot what gave rise to the papacy in the first place—the need for a final interpreter. It did not help the matter that some papal defenders made claims that went far beyond what was spell out by the first Vatican Council. It also did not help that Luther thought that all he had to do was to peel away the corruption of doctrines and get to the settled core. The problem with this procedure is that it becomes like peeling an onion.