It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity....proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Nothing in that quote changes what he said in the quote I posted.
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
Yes, it did. The proofs of Scripture offered are like those from the Old Testament referenced in the New Testament. It takes context to understand. The Church has been providing that context from the beginning. Let's consider something like the Eucharist. We don't think it should be controversial. Have you considered that the Epistles were written with a purpose? Their purpose was the correction and reproof of churches which had lost their way. We know the Christians at the time were accused of cannibalism because they claimed they ate the flesh of Jesus. Yet there was no mention in Scripture to correct this. In fact, if you read 1 Cor 11 in context, it confirms it further. Yet this teaching is denied.
What good are Biblical proofs when even something so extensively covered as the Eucharist is denied? You simply deny the Church the authority given Her by Christ and though you claim to want an explanation, no explanation will suffice.
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
To quote "A Fish Called Wanda"...
"Apes don't read Nietzsche."
"Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."
You are quoting great doctors of the Church in an attempt to undermine the authority of the Church. There is no change to their statements... only context you don't understand. If you truly want to read what these great saints wrote, put down the tracts and read their writings in full.
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
Excellent point...I was going to respond but then I scrolled down and saw your post...
This proves what we and others have been saying all along...
The earliest church fathers unanimously supported 'sola scripture'...It's clear from the Catholic religion's own history that the Catholic religion didn't come into existance til Constantine...
A set of Ignatius' writings were forged about that time making reference to the Catholic religion which didn't exist at the time of Ignatius' life...