This constant fighting against sola scriptura seems a head feint to allow Rome and others to replace it's decided upon traditions, for principles that some of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene & Post fathers did not mention, or support, and at times can be reasonably interpreted to have rejected. The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (if it can be trusted) doesn't much support some of the later inventions, either, though I do recall that being brought here recently by yourself.
[don't get me wrong...I'm not saying all "tradition" should be ignored, not at all, but perhaps that some parts are not beyond needful challenge of attention]
There surely wasn't [the previously acknowledged to be needful, see Vincent of Lerins] unanimity concerning a few points, including that "tradition" could change what can be reasonably seen to have been previously held scriptural understanding, changing clear meanings with later arrived at, but grown over many centuries, dogmas.
Many quotes can be found which are quite explicit for that cause. Other quotes, (some of which have been misused to the extent to support opposite of originally implied meaning!) need be taken in context of a particular (ECF) writer's other writings, and style, to properly understand their meanings, in a simple, scholarly way.
Webster points towards a few of both, and those do indeed have powerful ramifications. Argue with Webster, if one can, for though he may be over-stating the case to an extent in portions of his own editorial comment, the underlying thesis is solid. The very doctrines and dogmas most in dispute, cannot be seen to have been passed down from the beginning, as claims for such is still made for, here and elsewhere.
The real record, if one looks closely, show significant differences, and those of which the more astute and learned in Catholicism have long been aware of, as he touches upon, and then pillories.
He ends one of his own Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say) link target being the subheading, with:
This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium — the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.
Should I go to the link and paste the entire thing here? Please spare me any complaint that this was "orthodox-reformed" discussion --- unless one wishes to sift through both piles of material, and point to where your above data dump post differs, from what he is raising points to the contrary for.
The argument set forth in the article which you bring, is yet another attempt to discredit any form of sola Scriptura, is it not? Then those persons wishing to do so, perhaps could take their argument to Webster, (even as I can hear the apologetic ramping up, with one or two itching to tell me all about how such is artfully explained, and how it is so right, with the twists and turns of the apologetic able to sweep all else aside in the spectacular double-talk of the present "official" teaching).
Like I said, the argument (should one choose to accept the assignment --- cue the mission impossible theme) is with the points which Webster raises, and those similar. He brings nothing new, but simply encapsulates portions of the disagreements, which the Reformers themselves brought centuries ago, in a focused, albeit challenging manner.
The principle of sola scriptura wasn't apparently such a foul idea to Augustine, at least.
Though one might need read it entirety (my apologies) to fully grasp his position, Webster again, to explain my mention of Augustine, I'll bring here this small portion;
Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.15 Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’16
13. For comments by Augustine on the nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence refer to Appendix 8.
14. If the sentence . . . seems to enjoin a crime or vice. . . it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’ Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 563.
15. 'In respect of the presence of the Majesty we have Christ always; in respect of the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples, But Me ye will not always have. For the Church had Him in respect of the presence of the flesh, for a few days; now, by faith it holds, not with eyes beholds Him.’ A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John by S. Augustine, Homily 92.1, p. 873; Homily 50.13 (Oxford: Parker, 1849), pp. 677-78.
16. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.
“Once he does so [enter the Roman church by use of reason], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.”
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)
No! Mostly all wrong. I will post real verses of Augustine. Right now Busy.
Do yourself a favor do not just go by statements from this "scholar" check him out. Did you personally read Augustine's own verses. Also when he talks about reading scripture, He is talking about equals (priests and bishops) who are the church.
What does an anti-Roman Catholic polemic have to do with the Eastern Orthodox?
Though one might need read it entirety (my apologies) to fully grasp his position, Webster again, to explain my mention of Augustine, I’ll bring here this small portion;
However, the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defense of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was Augustine.13 He gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture should be interpreted literally and when figuratively. Passages of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded, and he used John 6 as a specific example of a passage that should be interpreted figuratively.14
Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.15 Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’16
>>Webster is selectively reading the concept of Sola Scriptura into St. Augustine’s writings. Perhaps, St. Augustine believed in the primacy of scripture as all of the Fathers did, but he didn’t believe that scripture alone was sufficient.
He is either uninformed or dishonest.
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:—’Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.’ Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?”
C. Epis Mani 5,6
“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it”
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis
“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you”
C. Cresconius I:33
“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true”
Sermon 117:6
“If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?”
C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18
“Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will seperate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?”
C. Julian 1:7,34
“The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you”
C. Faustus 8:5
“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”
Trinitas 4,6,10
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trad.htm
"Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual term"
Like symbol? I do not think so!
So Really? Wow! You should read for yourself.
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] The City of God (Book V)
“Christ was carried in his Own Hands when, referring to His Own Body, he said, ‘This is My Body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that Body in His Hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Sermon 8 on the New Testament
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been Sanctified by the Word of God, IS THE BODY of CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been Sanctified by the Word of God, IS The BLOOD of CHRIST” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).Read More
I think the Author "scholar" of this book and website sat in these chairs alot in class.
Please read Augustine for yourselves. I have been amazed at these psuedo authors represented for years on these threads who intrepret the original Early Church Fathers. Please check up on them yourself in context.
I will be trying to accurately post the very words themselves from the source. Just amazing how this goes on without the original verse next to what these authors declare. I hardly ever see alongside their own words.
Do you not find that very strange when his original verses are buried in footnotes to another footnote in a another book of reference. Did you ever read an honest scholar with proper foot notes.
It's like the author is a lawyer not caring whether his client/subject is not innocence just to represent a view. Strange brew with these authors.
Just this fav:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.