Replies

There is no support for it. There’s not one verse that mentions it, outlines it, suggests it. Not one. It is thus, self-refuting.

You keep saying that, but that is simply not true. I have produced a large listing of citation for the concept from the OT alone, posting that directly to you, in recent past even...

In combating the earliest heresies among the primitive and Early Christian Church, Scripture was not only relied upon foremost, but was the sense of things gained in those texts which was what produced agreement among the widest majorities.

They simply had to turn to them, for tradition alone is not enough, nor were even then *some* traditional understandings sufficient to over-ride the texts.

The texts themselves are and were recognized as being higher order than what can be said about them.

That become more difficult in regards to Arianism, but still ruled the day there, defeating 'traditional' understandings of long standing, mind you, for Arius himself was not suggesting any Christological concept which had no lineage at all.

Perhaps a modern-day theologian can convince you?

Try on the following for size, and see if it can fit.

"In this connection, it is assuredly worthy of note that Luther, for instance, based his Catechisms, not on a carefully considered system of proofs, but quite simply on what are called the loci, the priciple deposits of faith, which he gathered together and explained: the Ten Commandments, the Our Father, the sacraments, the confession of faith. In doinig so, it might be added, he followed the most ancient catechetical traditions and thus differed in no formal way from the Catholic Church. To be honest, I do not understand why we are no longer capable of such moderation today but must insist upon basing our textbooks on the most sophisticated structural systems, which are as transitory as their authors, and the intricacies of which are, for the most part, not comprehensible to our students." ....
"The movement towards renewal, which has been observable in the field of Catholic theology since the end of World War I, understood itself as ressourcement, as a return to the sources that were no longer seen through the eyes of Scholastic philosophy but were to be read in themselves, in their own original form and breadth. Granted, the sources that were to be discovered anew flowed first and above all in the Holy Scripture; but the search for a new way in which theology couild assimilate what was said in the Scriptures and realize it in the Church led of it's own accord to the Fathers, to the era of the early CHurch, in which the waters of faith still flowed unpolluted and in all their freshness." ...
"...At first glance, there seems indeed to be a very sastifactory answer; Of course! Back to the sources. But why the Fathers of the Church? Is not Scripture enough? From opposite perspective one might just as easily argue that there can be no problem her since the matter has long ago been decided for us. In fact, Vatican Council I expressly followed the Council of Trent in decreeing that in ecclesiological matters ansd in matters of faith that meaning is to be accepted as the true maning of Scripture "what Holy Mother Church has held and still holds. She has the right to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. No one, therefore, is permitted to interperate Sacred Scriptures contrary to the sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Vatican II did not, it is true, repeat these statements, but neither did it retract them; a muted echo can, in fact, be detected when the Dogmatic Constition on Revelation, after it's approval of research regardling literary forms and so, in principle, of the application of historical-critical methods to the explanation of the Bible, continues; "But since Sacred Scripture must be read and interperated with it's divine author-ship in mind, no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the entire tradition of the Church and the analogy of faith, if we are to derive their true meaning from the sacred texts." ....
"...In view of such texts, we might seem justified in assering that the in asserting that the importance of the Fathers of Catholic theology has been, as it were, dogmatized. But does this help to solve the problem? On the contrary, it does precisely the opposite by letting it be seen for the first time in all it's complexity. In the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, as we have seen, affirmation of the historical-critical method stands in peaceful juxtapostion of interpretation on the basis of the tradition and faith of the Church; but this twofold affirmation conceals the antagonism of two basic attitudes that are diametrically opposed to one another in both origiin and purpose. The Council text regards, as the essence of the second method, the understanding of Holy Scripture in which one part sustains the other, has it's existence in it, so that each part can be understood only in terms of the whole. With this, we have in fact touched upon the fundamental concept of patristic exegesis, of which the central exigetical ide was unity --the unity that is Christ himself, who permeates and sustains all Scripture."
".... Assurdely, the Fathers are not, then, devoid of all significance for the modern scriptural exegete. At the very least, he will have to acknowledge them as witnesses to the text and as members of an age that was relatively close to the origin of the Scriptures; but the role that thus falls to them is a modest on that is, in any event, quite differnt from the concept of the normative power of the unanimus concensus Patrum with which we began." ...
"...Despite all that has thus far been said, we have by no means exhausted the problem of the Tridentine and Roman texts with which we started. For we might now say; All right, then; the scriptural interpretations ofd the Fathers are no longer as important as they once were. But these same texts show that, for the teachings of Catholic theology, Scripture and tradition are normative; hence, we might say, even if the Fathers are perhaps of secondary importance as interpreters of Scripture, they are unquestionably of primary importance as witnesses to tradition."...
" ...Thomas Aquinas and the other great scholastics of the thirteenth century are "Fathers" of a specifically Roman Catholic theology from which the Christian churches of the Reformation consider themselves completely seperated and which, for the churches of the East, also express and alien mentality. But the teachers of the ancient Church represent a common past that, precisely as such, may well be a promise for the future. This thought must not be esteemed too lightly, for it is, in fact, to be regarded as the catalyst that can help solve the problem of the relationship between patristic and modern theology. Here, too, however, we must not seek an easy answer by overlooking the obstacles that lie in the way. Whereas the theology of the Eastern Churches has never aspired to be anything but a patristic theology, the attitude of the Reformantion towards the Fathers was, from the beginning --- and still is -- ambigous. Melanchthon stove emphatically to prove that the heritage of the ancient Church, which had been abandoned by medieval Catholicism, was restored in the Confessio Augustana; Flaccius Illyricus, the first great historian of the Reformation, followed in his footsteps, and the work of Calvin, with its radical reliance upon Augustine, takes the same direction. By contrast, Luther's attitude to the Fathers, including Augustine, was always more critical. The conviction seemed to grow ever stronger in him that the defection from the Gospels occurred at a very early date. I will suffice to quote one typical text: "I say this because I wasted and lost much time on Gregory, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen. For the Fathers, in their time, had a remarkable attraction to and liking for allegories; they used them constantly, and their books are full of 141 them... ...The reason is this, that they all followed their own conceit, mind and opinion, as they thought right, and not St. Paul, who wanted to let the Holy Spirit act there from within." Even here the Fathers seem to be discredited for their use of allegory, and the study of them seems to be regarded as a waste of time by comparison with the direct attention to the word of Scripture." ....
"...But this does not solve the basic problem of whether or not the Fathers themselves are a way, a byway or a flase way to the Scriptures, except that, for the Fathers themselves, their scriptural way was not distinguishable from their ecclesial way, and to seperate them is to open an unhistorical perspective. And in precisely this bond lies the question that concerns us. In many respects, a decision about the role of the Fathers seems, in fact, to have been reached today. But, since it is more unfavorable than favorable to a greater reliance upon them, it does nothing to lead us out of our present aporia. For, in the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of the Fathers, Luther's historical instinct is clearly proving itself right."...

No this next does not come in close or direct context to the preceding, but was included. I can proved page numbers. After you say that you either accept the validity of what the writer is saying, generally.

"...At work here is a natural concept of age for which what is earlier is per se always better and closer to the gods, while the constantly forward-moving era of those born later grows ever more distant froom the source and, for that reason, compels them urgently to guard that which was in the beginning and which communicates to their late hour the tidings of a distant truth. For the self-understanding of Christian theology, an almost passing remark of St. Benedict has been for centuries a kind of programmatic answer to this attitude. All monks, young and old, are called to the monk's chapter, he said,"because the Lord often reveals to a younger monk what is better"..."
"...The Fathers, we can now say, were the theological teachers of the undivided Church; their theology was, in the original sense of the word; an "ecumenical theology" that belonged to all; they were "Fathers" not only of a part but also of the whole and are, therefore, to be called 'Fathers" in a distinctive sense that is perculiarly their own.
3. Basic reflection on the functions of the Fathers in the synthesis of faith
This insight can be deepened and it's content enriched. The fact already mentioned, namely, that Scripture is always read in some way under tutelage of certain "Fathers" can now be expressed in the more general formula that Scripture and the Fathers belong together as do word and answer. The two are not identical, are not of equal importance, do not possess the same normative power. The word is always first; the response, second---the order is not to be reversed."

Now I don't have time right at the moment to closely proofread the above (so there could be some typo's, or eles poorly rendered 'copy' for I had to type it all out by hand, and right now quick, I gotta go. Thankfully enough, all I have to do is walk down the street --- not too far.

But read that last sentence --- and let it marinate, and soak in.

For perhaps without the writer being fully cognizant of doing so, he very much re-established the principle of sola scriptura --- in that if we are to turn to ECF's as our guide, we must allow their conduct and approaches as exampled, assist in guiding us closer to truth, even as they individually did not agree with each other on all things (sometimes could be seen to diametrically disagree on various points) there still was, and is today by a modern theologian recommendation for the principle which you keep insisting does not exist.

Not even a suggestion -- you just said!