Cyril of Jerusalem does not hold to Sola Scriptura, no Church Father did. Now, I will use Pelikan this time and just use a short quote “In the Anti-Nicene Church...there was no notion of sola Scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of tradition sola” Pelikan points out that Liturgical practice and prayers, exegetical material, etc, were all part of Tradition....Pelikan states that Ireneaus, with respect to this Apostolic Tradition saw Christ was both the origin and content of Tradition. Christ got it from the Father and gave it to the Apostles who gave it to the Church....He compares that Tradition to the Gnostics and he states “so palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in position to follow “the structure of tradition which they handed on to those to whom they committed the Churches”
Pelikan continues and points that the anti-Gnostic Fathers used the early Creedal statements of faith as integral elements in the determination and demonstration of apostolic continuity. These statements were integral for continuity before, during, and after the establishment of the NT canon: before, in order that Christians might have the essentials of faith assured to them; during, so that a principle of discrimination might enable the church to sort out the writings claiming apostolic sanction; and after, because the canon of the New Testament was too long and complex to act as standard of faith and needed to be condensed into a rule or rule of faith. The term “rule of faith” did not always refer to Creeds and confessions, and seems to have meant the “tradition,” sometimes the Scriptures and sometimes the message of the Gospel. [Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100-600AD, pp. 115-177]
Now this is from Pelikan and yes he is speaking of the Pre-Nicene Church, but as he states, there was no “sola Scriptura” or “sola Tradition” but Apostolic Tradition was One, which was expressed via Liturgy, Creeds and confessions, and Scripture, and other exegetical material [I assume the writings of the anti-Gnostic Fathers, as he quotes many of them in this section]
So scriptures being sufficient to teach the faith is not an endorsement of Sola scriptura.
I have been through it with Jerome already. He was a loyal Catholic, so if you see in duress force, I don’t. He saw Rome as his Mother Church and was loyal to Popes and corresponded with Popes even after he left Rome when Damasus died.
I understand the concept of Primacy is viewed differently in the East vs. the West. Rome did have a primacy, I can go to Pelikan’s Spirit of Eastern Christendom and go through his work again. In short, he states, Rome was on the side of every matter that was orthodox, and it became apparent early on whatever side Rome took was going to win. He also points out that no council was viewed as universal unless the Bishop of Rome approved it and that Rome could veto a canon on its own and it would carry weight with the entire Church.
So the debate of the role and Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome is actually a legitimate one, but there is not debate that Rome had a “Primacy” . the only question is the nature of that Primacy in terms of how it is to be exercised. I am well aware that Alexandria and Antioch had connections to Peter, I pointed that out with what Fr. Jurgens calls a legitimate statement from Damasus regarding the 3 major sees, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, all connected to Saint Peter. Gregory is only repeating what the early Church already new. Nothing new here nothing earth shattering.
So how Rome exercises Primacy in a hypothetical reunited Rome and Orthdodox Church, good question, probably something of the order as outlined by Pelikan Volume 2 or what one can extract from it.
As for all you write about Rome and early Church, yes, nobody knows he first founded the Church. But Peter and Paul went there, built it to what it was when they both died there.
As for Jerome and his prefaces, no, the Church could allow him to write his views on the scriptures. That was well within the bounds so to speak. What he could not do, and remain Catholic, was to translate the Bible not in accordance with Tradition of what Scriptures have been used.
Now, this debate about canonicity only proves the point I have made, the Bible and what it should entail was a messy process. Again, the principles of canonicity were generally 4, for the NT 1) Apostolic origin, 2)Read in Liturgy, 3) Universal acceptance, 4) Consensus of Message of the Faith.
Some made it on all 4, those like 1 Peter, Acts, 4 Gospels, and the Pauline Corpus. Some like the Hebrews were debated for a long time [can’t make it on 1], some did not read it in Church, so not 2, etc, James, Revelation, 2 Peter, some of John’s epistles also shared the same fate as Hebrews.
So during the debates over canonicity, some might have argued that NT books that met all 4 were more canonical than others, some viewed canonicity strictly on “what was read in the Church” for it was read in Church, it was de facto teaching doctrine via the Liturgy.
As for the evidence you asked, I thought I linked the Councils of Constantinopile, both 381 and 382. In one of them, the opening Letter mentions the Council in Rome being held and that Constantinopile sends that council greetings. In another one, there is a mention of a Tome from the West. Now, that Tome is not defined, but it does mention a Tome from the West. This, some Catholic scholars argue, could likely be the Decree of Pope Damasus where he reminds the Bishops that gathered there that ROme, Alexandria and Antioch are the 3 major sees given their connection to Peter. I thought I had cited that statement earlier
As for the quote of Wisdom 2:23. If you go to P. Schaff’s translation of the letter, he had well documented footnotes and I think he cites this passage. I know the translation of Jerome’s Letter here at Newadvent cites it.
It is wise of you to flee to Pelikan, but your failure to engage the substance of the issue, their own testimony that even their own doctrine should not be accepted unless it can "be brought out of the Holy scriptures," makes your attempt here to be totally in vain. Kelly is with me on Cyril and the others referenced, but what about Ireaneus and Tertullian? (You don't speak of Tertullian, but Kelly puts them together.)
Kelly notes that Ireaneus and Tertullian responded to Gnostic claims of a secret tradition with their own tradition, designed to support their claims of the authentic Gospels and New Testament. IOW, we know that our Gospel of John is authentic, and your Gospel of Thomas is a fake, because we have have a succession from the very beginning where we received this book, and an oral tradition which, though independent, confirms all the doctrines of Christianity. IOW, if the Gnostics have their own "secret" tradition to backup their interpretations and books, so do Christians, and it is a superior one. We know that our doctrines are correct, because the tradition handed down to us confirms it. This same "tradition," in theory independent of the scripture, was itself, however, still viewed as a summary of what was already written, and can be confirmed out of the holy scriptures, provided it was "taken as a whole."
"The whole point of his [Irenaeus] teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of revelation. If tradition as conveyed in the canon is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously." (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 39)
This is favorable to us, since tradition is again limited to that which can be "shown out of all the scriptures," since it is only the teachings of the scripture itself, making tradition and doctrine subservient to the Word of God, and not tradition over scripture, as the Papists must maintain to support their extra-biblical doctrines.
"In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the Apostles, and he [Tertullian] never contrasted tradition so understood with scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrine not discoverable in it." (Ibid, p. 39).
Next, let's note explicit examples of what tradition are for Ireaneus and Tertullian. They are not the same traditions held today by Rome:
Tertullian -- Against Transubstantiation
On John 6, no literal enjoinment to eat Christ:
"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ch. 37)
Tertullian-- "Show me where it is written." Against adding to or removing from the scripture:
"I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. John 1:3 But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. Revelation 22:18-19"(Tertullian,Against Hermogenes,Ch. 22)
Tertullian -- Babylon in John's Revelation is Rome
"So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints." (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 9)
Tertullian -- Confession is to be done in public at the feet of the brethren, not alone in secret:
"But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear, joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father, why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member, 1 Corinthians 12:26 it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in labouring for the remedy. In a company of two is the church; but the church is Christ. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren's knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy. What a son asks is ever easily obtained. Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! To wit, if we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgment of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par? Is it better to be damned in secret than absolved in public?" (Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch. 10)
Tertullian -- Against both the making of images of things in heaven and their worship
"Every form or formling, therefore, claims to be called an idol. Hence idolatry is all attendance and service about every idol. Hence also, every artificer of an idol is guilty of one and the same crime, unless, the People which consecrated for itself the likeness of a calf, and not of a man, fell short of incurring the guilt of idolatry.[...] God prohibits an idol as much to be made as to be worshipped. In so far as the making what may be worshipped is the prior act, so far is the prohibition to make (if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition. For this cause— the eradicating, namely, of the material of idolatry— the divine law proclaims, You shall make no idol; and by conjoining, Nor a similitude of the things which are in the heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea, has interdicted the servants of God from acts of that kind all the universe over." (Tertullian, On Idolatry, Ch. 3-4)
Tertullian- Early traditions
"To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week... We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful." (Tertullian, The Chaplet, Ch. 3)
Tertullian- Anti-Romish definition of the church
"For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three. And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church, from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops" (Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 21)
In short, he states, Rome was on the side of every matter that was orthodox, and it became apparent early on whatever side Rome took was going to win.
As a matter of fact, Rome has lost many times. On top of the Cyprian example from Augustine, here's another example:
"“Fifth Ecumenical Council
A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote “These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.”[104] German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called “ …without the assent of the Pope”[105]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#Orthodox_arguments_from_Church_Councils
I have been through it with Jerome already. He was a loyal Catholic, so if you see in duress force, I don’t.
Who cares what you see? Let the reader judge Jerome's words and response for themselves.
I understand the concept of Primacy is viewed differently in the East vs. the West.
Not only is it viewed differently, their opinion is actually supported out of the Pope's themselves. Again, let the reader judge who is right-- the Papist or the Pope! The Church Father or the modern true believer and his liberal Pope!
So the debate of the role and Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome is actually a legitimate one, but there is not debate that Rome had a “Primacy” .
There is certainly a debate on "primacy." After all, I've already presented one, which you've largely ignored. But if the definition of primacy really is up for grabs, this means that you are conceding the possibility that Rome really isn't the head of the church. This is a fatal position for the Papists to hold, though, perhaps they are hoping that no one figures out how different the definitions of "Primacy" is when they surrender to this. If the Bishop of Rome is not the "rock", as Augustine and others held, is not the universal head, might not have the keys, might not be the vicar of Christ, the one we must all be in communion with, then you have no church, no rule, no authority, no claims at all. Because what your church has been torturing and killing people for.. is a non-entity at worst, and a thing for debate, at best, by your own concession!
But Peter and Paul went there, built it to what it was when they both died there.
A mere repetition of what I replied to in my previous post. Reread my previous post as my second reply.
As for Jerome and his prefaces, no, the Church could allow him to write his views on the scriptures. That was well within the bounds so to speak.
IOW, the Church had not authoritatively taught against him, which you want us to believe is not the case.
Some like the Hebrews were debated for a long time [can’t make it on 1], some did not read it in Church,
As a matter of fact, Hebrews was not acknowledged by Rome, as Jerome reports. The Greeks, in their turn, refused Revelation.
As for the evidence you asked, I thought I linked the Councils of Constantinopile, both 381 and 382. In one of them, the opening Letter mentions the Council in Rome being held and that Constantinopile sends that council greetings. In another one, there is a mention of a Tome from the West. Now, that Tome is not defined, but it does mention a Tome from the West. This, some Catholic scholars argue, could likely be the Decree of Pope Damasus where he reminds the Bishops that gathered there that ROme, Alexandria and Antioch are the 3 major sees given their connection to Peter. I thought I had cited that statement earlier
IOW, you want us to believe that there is a tome, as confessed by you as "undefined," which only "some" Catholic scholars argue, "could likely" (they are not even confident in their own claims?) prove that the canon was sorted in Rome long before Trent?
You damage your own arguments even better than I can!