J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.
Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, ('See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18) and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)
How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture.
Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this:
For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.[ Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 133.]
In fact, the apostle Paul himself states that the gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the written Scriptures.[ 'Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:1-4).]The church as a whole, up to the thirteenth century, never viewed tradition to be a source of revelation.
“Protestant teaching of sola scriptura”
I cannot understand how you can at the same time affirm scripture and decimate scripture. You cannot affirm what you tear away.
This is why I believe that scripture does not teach sola scripture, and why we never see any of the Church fathers use the term. Until Luther.
“yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers.”
This is true.
“When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine.”
Not so. Your quote from Iraneus refers to the fact that the Apostles had the teaching authority to preach the word, and that from these words, the bible was written. So clearly, Tradition came first, and did refer explicitly to doctrine, the bible itself could not be written.
“Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture.”
Iraneus readily accepted Scripture as approved by the Apostles, so clearly, Tradition wasn’t subordinate to Scripture. Had books come down to him that were not approved by the Apostles do you think they would have been considered Scripture? No.
This the problem.
‘Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture’
Which is why the Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative. To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.
To say that the Catholic church goes so far to say that Tradition ought to be independent of Scripture, is also false.
So let’s stop arguing against straw men. The Church teaches scripture and tradition.
Protestants argue a mutilated scripture to uphold a mutilated tradition.