Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 2)
May 15th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
Modern Roman Catholic Apologetics and Sola Scriptura
As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church’s teaching authority, and in light of “living tradition.” De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the “Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records.”
This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible’s true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tradition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.
So it is not hard to understand why in recent years Catholic apologists have attacked sola Scriptura with a vengeance. If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers’ other points fall with it. For under the Catholic system, whatever the Church says must be the standard by which to interpret all Scripture. Tradition is the “true” Scripture, written in the heart of the Church. The Church—not Scripture written in “documents and records”—defines the truth about justification by faith, veneration of saints, transubstantiation, and a host of other issues that divided the Reformers from Rome.
To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant. And in practice this is precisely what happens. To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son’s “co-mediatrix.” And in the eyes of millions of Catholics, what the Church says is seen as the final and authoritative Word of God. First Timothy 2:5 is thus nullified by Church tradition.
If Rome can prove her case against sola Scriptura, she overturns all the arguments for the Reformation in one fell swoop. If she can establish her tradition as an infallible authority, no mere biblical argument would have any effect against the dictates of the Church.
Modern Roman Catholic apologists have therefore mounted a carefully focused attack against sola Scriptura. Hoping to turn the Reformation’s greatest strength into an argument against the Reformation, they have begun to argue that it is possible to debunk sola Scriptura by using Scripture alone! This line of argument is now being employed by Catholics against evangelicalism in practically every conceivable forum.
For example, from some articles posted on the Internet:
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority—sola Scriptura—is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is “useful” (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation.
From some books written by Catholic Apologists:
And from a public debate on the question of sola Scriptura:
The Sufficiency of Scripture
First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.
Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.
Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).
So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture—and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency—and nowhere more clearly that 1 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.”
So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura is simply wrong.
(To be continued tomorrow)
“Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible either yet the doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is a thread woven cover to cover.
If the Scriptures give authority to the Church then was there an authoritative Church before the Scriptures were completed and put together into a single book?
John,
First, let me thank you for including such a beautiful picture of Our Mother Mary.
OK here we go,
You said:
“Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
What did Luther do? He removed 7 books from the Old Testament that were included in the same canon as the New Testament of the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo (370-390 A.D.)…Why, because they spoke of the prayers for the dead. He also wanted to remove the book of James, which he called the “epistle of straw” because of James 2:24 which says that we are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH alone. The only place in the bible where faith and alone are included together and is soundly negated. He also wanted to remove the Book of Revelation….Thankfully for you Protestants, the other “reformers” stopped him.
So by reading the bible without the “apocrapha” Protestants are following a “tradition of man and negating the Word of God”
You also said:
Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.
If that is the case then why did Jesus say in John 16:12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now”.
13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
This plainly says that further things would be revealed.. could it be “the development of Doctorine” or Infallibilty when speaking “ex cathedra” on faith and morals like the issues you mentioned concerning DNA? How about cloning, in vitro fertilization, abortion, contraception, poligamy? The Catholic Church speaks with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself when teaching on these matters. Martin Luther spoke of a man that wanted more than one wife and Luther could not refute him with the scriptures alone even though he knew it to be wrong.
You also said:
Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.
Where does the bible say that? If it doesn’t, then again you are following “a tradition of man and negating the Word of God”.
And of course the Westmister Confession of Faith would speak of the scriptures ONLY, since they broke from Rome because of their adulterer King not getting his divorce to marry again..
This why it is important to read what the early church fathers said on the matter of scripture alone. Why?, because they again show what was believed at the time. They overwhelmingly look to The Church, since The Church came before the New Testament and not vice versa.
What did Jesus say in Matthew 28:19-20?
19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Did He say go forth and hand out bibles? No..He said to “TEACH them to observe ALL that I have commanded”
And also, “I am with you ALWAYS, until the end of the age.” How is He with us? He is first and foremost with us in The Eucharist and he is with us acting through “His Vicar”.
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 (”Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (”I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (”You are Peter . . . “).
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).
“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).
God bless..
John,
First, let me thank you for including such a beautiful picture of Our Mother Mary.
OK here we go,
You said:
“Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
What did Luther do? He removed 7 books from the Old Testament that were included in the same canon as the New Testament of the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo (370-390 A.D.)…Why, because they spoke of the prayers for the dead. He also wanted to remove the book of James, which he called the “epistle of straw” because of James 2:24 which says that we are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH alone. The only place in the bible where faith and alone are included together and is soundly negated. He also wanted to remove the Book of Revelation….Thankfully for you Protestants, the other “reformers” stopped him.
So by reading the bible without the “apocrapha” Protestants are following a “tradition of man and negating the Word of God”
You also said:
Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.
If that is the case then why did Jesus say in John 16:12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now”.
13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
This plainly says that further things would be revealed.. could it be “the development of Doctorine” or Infallibilty when speaking “ex cathedra” on faith and morals like the issues you mentioned concerning DNA? How about cloning, in vitro fertilization, abortion, contraception, poligamy? The Catholic Church speaks with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself when teaching on these matters. Martin Luther spoke of a man that wanted more than one wife and Luther could not refute him with the scriptures alone even though he knew it to be wrong.
Sorry for the double post.
Gerry,
I just wanted to clarify something that you said…
you said: because of James 2:24 which says that we are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH alone.
Actually the Scripture at that passage says…
“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
The key phrase is “you see.” We can only see someones faith by their works, i don’t think any Protestant would disagree with that.
For a couple days now, people (esp. Mrs. Burrows) have said that the Bible does not teach the trinity, but that our understanding of it is owed to the RCC. I’m not sure that is true. For starters, I would say the Bible is quite clear that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. See: gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/trinity.html. Secondly, what of those who defended the trinity before it was sanctioned/invented/approved by the official church councils? Where did they get their understanding of it, if not Scripture? Athanasius, for example, taught the trinity before it was affirmed by the church, and taught it even when the majority of the “state church” (for lack of a better term) opposed him.
Here is where the authority merry-go-round of the Catholic church is in play, because Athanasius was later recognized as a saint, so he is pointed to as an example of the authority of the RCC, when in reality he derived his authority from the Scriptures.
Jesse
Gerry,
Thanks for your comments and interaction. It is important to discuss these things, as they are of eternal significance.
Regarding the apocryphal books: the early church fathers actually held differing views as to whether or not the apocryphal books were canonical. Some embraced them, others rejected them, and some believed they were of some moral value though lesser than that of the rest of Scripture. It was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced those books as part of the canon. You can read a good, objective overview of what happened here. For you to imply that the unanimous testimony of patristic evidence favors the apocrypha is misleading.
Second, John 16:12–15 was a promise to the apostles which was largely fulfilled in the writing of the New Testament. The revelation Jesus promised was given to them through the Holy Spirit, who inspired them to write Scripture (2 Pet. 1:20–21). Beyond what is recorded in the apostolic writings, we have no way of knowing what additional revelation Jesus gave to His apostles. This interpretation of John 16:12–15 accords with that of Augustine in his Tractate 96 on the Gospel of John. Augustine does not equate this additional revelation with Church Tradition. Rather, he says that it is impossible to know what Jesus revealed to His apostles, except for that which is recorded in the canonical books. Augustine also emphasizes the fact that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate guide and teacher of every believer.
I mention Augustine only in the hopes of demonstrating that a leading church father interpreted John 16:12–15 in a way consistent with today’s article.
Thanks,
NB
Gerry,
You also asked: “Where does the Bible say that?” in reference to the statement that sola Scriptura “means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.” One place would 2 Peter 1:3, where Peter writes that God “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.” In the context, Peter goes on to identify the Scriptures as the source of that true knowledge (v. 4, 19–21). Other passages that teach the sufficiency of Scripture include Psalm 19:7–9; 119:1, 44-45, 160, 165; Prov. 30:5–6; 2 Tim. 3:15 – 17; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23.
In this regard, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem writes this:
*****
The biblical teaching about the sufficiency of Scripture gives us confidence that we will be able to find what God requires us to think or to do in [moral and doctrinal] areas. In many of these areas we can attain confidence that we, together with the vast majority of the church throughout history, have found and correctly formulated what God wants us to think or to do. Simply stated, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture tells us that it is possible to study systematic theology and ethics and find answers to our questions.
At this point we differ from Roman Catholic theologians, who would say that we have not found all that God says to us about any particular subject until we have also listened to the official teaching of the church throughout its history. We would respond that although the history of the church may help us to understand what God says to us in the Bible, never in church history has God added to the teachings or commands of Scripture: Nowhere in church history outside of Scripture has God added anything that he requires us to believe or to do. Scripture is sufficient to equip us for “every good work,” and to walk in its ways is to be “blameless” in God’s sight. (Systematic Theology, 129)
*****
Hope that helps,
NB
Jesse,
You misunderstand why some “Councils” were convened. They were convened when there was an objection to the current practice or teaching of “The Church” and the deposit of faith. As you can see in Acts (”The Council of Jerusalem”) there was a disagreement about circumcision and making Gentiles “Jews” before they became Christians.
Let’s take a look at scripture in Acts 15:
6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”
12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
13 After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.
14 Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:
16 ‘After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again,
17 so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,
18 known from of old.’
19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
So let’s recap,they all gathered (visible Church) in Jerusalem to discuss the matter of the Judaizers and then PETER spoke. After Peter spoke (the assembly fell silent)then Paul and Barnabas spoke and then as Bishop of Jerusalem, James concurred with Peter’s (Symeon) decision. That is how each of the Church councils take place.
Let’s look at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D) in which the already present teaching of the Doctorine of the Trinity was challenged by the Arian heresy. This council gave us the Nicean Creed, which Catholics profess every week at Mass.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
So the councils just clarify and RESTATE what was ALWAYS believed.
You can see for yourself the amount of people who read the bible and say there is no Trinity or Jesus was not God, etc…
2 Peter 3:16
speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
We Catholics read scripture and see the Trinity, see Jesus IS GOD and also see that he left a visible Church to “teach all that I have commanded you.”
God bless.
Gerry,
You wrote: “This why it is important to read what the early church fathers said on the matter of scripture alone.”
We would agree . . . though we would see the church fathers as helpful witnesses to Scripture, and not as absolute authorities in their interpretations of Scripture. Nonetheless, here are a few helpful quotes in this regard. More on this can be found here and here.
Hope this helps,
NB
Gerry,
You wrote: “The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church.”
And yet it wasn’t officially recognized by the church until 1870 at Vatican I? What about the times when popes have contradicted one another?
The apostle Peter is a special case. Arguing papal infallibility from promises made only to Peter is just not convincing.
- NB
Gerry,
You wrote: “That mandate [from Matt. 28:18-20] and that promise [from John 16:13] guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15).”
And yet history indicates times when even the Catholic Church recognized its own need to reform. The period of catholic reform under Paul III, Paul IV, and Pius III (including the Council of Trent and the establishment of the Jesuits as part of the counter-Reformation) is a perfect example of this.
The promise of John 16:13, as Augustine correctly understood, applied primarily to the apostles and secondarily to individual Christians. It did not apply to Church tradition.
NB
Nate,
You said: Regarding the apocryphal books: the early church fathers actually held differing views as to whether or not the apocryphal books were canonical. Some embraced them, others rejected them, and some believed they were of some moral value though lesser than that of the rest of Scripture. It was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced those books as part of the canon. You can read a good, objective overview of what happened here. For you to imply that the unanimous testimony of patristic evidence favors the apocrypha is misleading
I say: Why did they need a canon? Was there one prior to the Council of Trent? Read below(copied from Catholic Answers).
While Old Testament arguments revolved around traditional Jewish acceptance of the books as sacred, New Testament difficulties related mostly to authorship. If the book was not clearly apostolic in origin, the Church tended to dispute or reject it. For instance, the Western Church was not convinced Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul, while the Eastern Church was. Meanwhile, the Eastern Church doubted the apostle John wrote Revelation, while the Western Church knew he had. Some New Testament works deemed apocryphal were and are recognized as essentially good-to-excellent theological works-the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas-but uncertain authorship prevented their acceptance as inspired. Other apocryphal books were not only of uncertain or flagrantly false authorship, but also had error mixed in with otherwise acceptable theology-the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Pontius Pilate. Many orthodox Christians fought to include theologically sound works such as the Didache in the canon of the New Testament, arguing for their apostolic origin.
About 140 a man named Marcion exploited this problem to his own benefit. He rejected all Scripture, Old and New Testament, except for portions of the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline epistles. He asserted that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New, that Christianity did not fulfill Judaism but replaced it, and that all creation was evil. Consequently, Jesus Christ, being God, could not really be a man. Denying some portion of accepted canonical Scripture soon became a common facet of heresy. Such heresy forced the Church to accelerate its work in identifying Scripture.
The Scorecard: In 382 Pope Damasus convoked a synod which produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. In 393 the Council of Hippo reiterated the list, as did the First Council of Carthage four years later. In 405 Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to Exsuperius, the bishop of Toulouse, listing the same books as Scripture. The list was given again in 419 at the Second Council of Carthage.
You said: I mention Augustine only in the hopes of demonstrating that a leading church father interpreted John 16:12–15 in a way consistent with today’s article.
I say: In what Church was Augustine a Bishop of? There is nothing in his writings that disagree with Catholic theology. Read below:
Augustine
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
“We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
“”If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (ibid., 5:6).
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Gerry,
Sorry to post so many responses at once. (I decided to break down my one long response into several smaller ones.) This will be my last (with regard to your first comment).
I noticed that you still have not responded to the quote I put up yesterday from Clement of Rome. Clement is someone whom you regard as a pope (the fourth pope, I believe), and therefore infallible. So when Clement writes the following about justification by faith, how do you respond?
****
And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
****
I can produce numerous other quotes as well (from other fathers), but I wanted to hear your response to this one in particular, since it comes from someone you regard as an infallible authority, and since it is the earliest non-canonical Christian document we have.
Thanks,
NB
Gerry,
In response to your most recent post above…
As John (not MacArthur) pointed out yesterday, the term “catholic” meant “universal” and did not refer specifically to the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. Before the East-West Schism (of 1045) and the Protestant Reformation (1517), all doctrinally-orthodox Christians were part of the “catholic” (universal) church.
To argue that Augustine was referring to the Roman Catholic Church specifically, rather than the “catholic” church in a universal sense, is grossly anachronistic.
- NB
Nate,
I do not disagree with any of the fathers that you quoted from, since almost all of them are canonized Saints of The Catholic Church and were “members of the Catholic Church”, so I find it interesting that you would quoute from them.
You cannot selectively pick and choose which of the writings to quote from, but have to look at the “totality” of their writings, just as we do in Sacred Scripture. You will see in the totality of their wrtings that they are “most definitely Catholic” with a capital “C”.
A little history on some of those that you quote:
Athanasius
Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church; born c. 296; died 2 May, 373. Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of “Father of Orthodoxy”, by which he has been distinguished every since.
Irenaeus
He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere.
Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about….Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386. In the East his feast is observed on the 18th of March, in the West on the 18th or 20th. Little is known of his life. We gather information concerning him from his younger contemporaries, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Rufinus, as well as from the fifth-century historians, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. Cyril himself gives us the date of his “Catecheses” as fully seventy years after the Emperor Probus, that is about 347, if he is exact. Constans (d. 350) was then still alive. Mader thinks Cyril was already bishop, but it is usually held that he was at this date only as a priest.
St. Cyril’s teaching about the Blessed Sacrament is of the first importance, for he was speaking freely, untrammelled by the “discipline of the secret”. On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: “Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?” Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood?
“Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration”. “Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . .
God bless.
Nate,
To give you a reply from Clement of Rome (Pope)
And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
I say AMEN also. I couldn’t agree more. I still find it interesting that you are quoting Catholic Bishops and Popes in your defense. I would find it more interesting if you could find quotes from any early Christian who wasn’t Catholic.
Clement also said:
Clement of Rome
“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).
“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.” (ibid. 58:2, 59:1).
“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (ibid. 63:2).
Nate,
You said: And yet it wasn’t officially recognized by the church until 1870 at Vatican I? What about the times when popes have contradicted one another?
I say: Again, it was “restated” not invented. As far as the Popes contradicting one another..they can contradict on their personal judgements, but NEVER on Doctorine (Faith and Morals)that is taught “ex cathedra”.
Please give me an example of such a contradiction that you speak of.
I’ll be back later this evening..time for work.
God bless.
Hasn’t the “Church” excommunicated and later canonized the same people? How is that possible? And where does the church concoct the idea of sainthood being bestowed on the dead only after much deliberation and many processes? The saints are clearly all dead and living believers in scripture. The priesthood is another non-starter scripturally. These and many other blasphemous doctrines are far from a mere “interpretation” of scripture. catholic doctrine is not only not supported by scripture, it is often flatly denied by it. Peter claimed no primacy in his own epistles, Mary is never called “mother” by anyone, celibacy is a doctrine of demons, traditions of men are condemned… the Sanhedrin of yore, the rabbis of today and the Catholic church have the same M.O. Wield dreadful spiritual power by exploiting the ignorance and fear of a superstitious populace not possessed of their own copies of the eternal truth. A toast to Luther, Tyndale, et al, by whom God broke the horrible bondage of ignorance and liberated for Himself a people to worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH!
Nate,
The problem we have quoting church fathers with Gerry, or any Catholic for that matter, is that we are painted into a logical corner. When we find orthodox writings, they say, “You are quoting one of our saints! That shows you believe us.” When we find quotes that seem to contradict RCC doctrine, we are told, “you are not looking at the totality of their writings.” We find ourselves in an argument against a position that has positioned itself against any kind of reproof. What kind of quote would be enough to conceivably sway a Catholic’s mind? If one is asked for, and you provide it, it does not have any affect.
Two days ago you were challenged to find sola scripture or sola fide from before the 1500’s. You met that challenge, and your quote was dismissed because it was from a Catholic Pope (talk about anachronistic).
Also, your comment on Huss was from two days ago was also not responded to. Here was a guy who was martyred for sola scriptura, before the reformation. Ironically, he was not killed by of the three popes at the time, but by a church council.
Jesse
Gerry,
Two things:
1) I find your response to Clement of Rome confusing. First, your additional quotes from Clement are irrelevant to the discussion. Second, your anachronistic reference to Clement as a pope is also ultimately irrelevant — again you are misusing the term “catholic” and you misunderstand how the papacy (as we know it today) arose in church history.
Nonetheless, it is your agreement with Clement’s quote that I find so surprising.
Clement flatly denies that our justification before God comes from any of our works, wisdom, understanding, godliness, or anything in ourselves. Instead, it is through faith. That is the doctrine of sola fide. And it runs in direct contradiction to the Roman Catholic teaching that justification is synergistic — depending both on faith and on good works.
When Clement says . . .
. . . does that really sound like Roman Catholic theology? It sounds a lot more like Luther or Calvin than it does Tetzel, Trent, or any of the medieval popes (who are all “infallible”). It also sounds exactly like the apostle Paul in Romans 4.
2) Regarding Catholic contradictions, I’ll give one quick example since I have to run to lunch…
a) Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Eugene IV all declared ex cathedra that no one outside of the Catholic Church could be saved. Yet we read the following in the Catholic catechism:
The Roman Catholic statement on justification (here) also posits justification/salvation as a possibility for those outside of the Roman Church:
So who is wrong here? Are the popes wrong, or is the mainstream teaching of the church wrong? If the church is infallible and the popes are infallible than why do they contradict one another?
- NB
Some examples of Pope’s contradicting previous Pope’s in official church statements or publications:
Can infants who are not baptized be saved if they die? John Paul II said yes (EV:99; 3/25/95); St. Zosimus (the 41st Pope if you count Peter) said no (D.102).
Can someone outside the Catholic Church be saved? John Paul said the possibility is there several times (Ghandi in SME:9; Jews in LOR 7/8/1980 and CH 99 in 1994; Buddhism in PM 147 6/17/1984; and Muslims CH 141, 1994). Others have said “no” quite clearly (Leo XIII in SCG 18 and 35; Pius VI all over the place, this was his main doctrine; Innocent III in ETN; Pius XII MC: 17-18; and Eugene IV in D:714).
Reading any history of popes is not for the faint of heart. Some were immoral doctrinally: Honorius rejected the humanity of Christ; Liberius outright rejected both the Trinity and Athanasius as an individual. Several Popes were immoral sexually (John XII and John XXIII, as well as Benedict IX being the worst examples). But, those denials and that immorality were not part of their “official function of the church” so people who were perverted doctrinally and personally can still be said to be infallible. When the doctrine of infallibility can be stretched to cover immoral men, heretical views, as well as contradictions, the doctrine ceases to be doctrinal, and instead becomes practical and flawed.
Also (I’m starting to have fun with this), I noticed that Cyprian was quoted frequently in defense of the idea that the early church was unified under Roman leadership. But, Schaff tells this story (in a section about the origin of Easter): the East (Jerusalem, Egypt) wanted one date, while the West (Rome) wanted another. Cyprian wrote, “But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…” He went on to mock those in Rome as claiming authority to allow “execrated heretics” into the church. He also said that exposing the tradition of men that masquerades as authority “is no departure from the peace and unity of the catholic church.” This quote is entertaining because obviously he means “catholic” as anything but “Roman authority.” But, assuming the word did mean that, notice that he is saying departing from, ignoring, or confronting Roman rule does not disrupt that authority.
These are from The Epistles of Cyprian .
Trying to dialogue with a catholic “scholar” is like speaking to a brick wall. You will come face to face with a classic case of sophistry; skilled in the art of chicanery and deceit. Unfortunately most of them are not looking for the Truth…….for they would rather seek refuge in lies.
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should BELIEVE A LIE; That they all might be damned who believed not the Truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness”……………..II Thessalonians 2:10-12
I can tell you one thing for sure, speaking the Gospel to them in love is the only way to reach them. Right? A harsh, name-calling styled approach is no way to reach Catholics for Christ. Do I think their theology is seriously flawed? Yes. Is there a better way to approach it? Yes. Preach the Gospel. Will the Lord not quicken them in His own time through the message preached?
Gerry,
Earlier you wrote: “I do not disagree with any of the fathers that you quoted from, since almost all of them are canonized Saints of The Catholic Church and were “members of the Catholic Church”, so I find it interesting that you would quote from them.”
My response: As a Protestant, this immediately evokes several questions in my thinking. For example, what do we do when they disagree with each other? What do we do when some of them were regarded as heretics (like Origen) or antipopes (like Hippolytus)? What do we do when they disagree with contemporary Roman theology?
The quotes I provided demonstrate (quite clearly in my view) that the early church fathers looked to the Scriptures as sufficient and as their ultimate authority. This is precisely what the doctrine of sola Scriptura asserts, and it runs counter to the contemporary Roman claim that the Church and tradition are on equal plain with Scripture (both in terms of authority and necessity).
Again, your claim that the fathers are members of the “capital C” Catholic Church [by which I understand you to mean Roman Catholic Church] is anachronistic and ultimately unconvincing. Moreover, the fact that these men made such clear statements about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is far more of a problem for the Roman view than for the Protestant view. Protestants do not consider the early fathers to be authoritative. We appreciate them, certainly, but we do not rely on their collective testimony as an infallible rule of faith and practice. On the other hand, Roman Catholics do. Thus, these are statements that every Roman Catholic must seriously consider, since in his or her thinking these statements are authoritative.
You wrote: You cannot selectively pick and choose which of the writings to quote from, but have to look at the “totality” of their writings, just as we do in Sacred Scripture.
My response: The church fathers often disagree with one another. There is no “patristic consensus” as Rome claims, such that we could look at the “totality” of their writings and find uniform agreement on all areas of doctrine and practice. Examples in this regard are exceedingly numerous, and I would be happy to provide some if you would like.
I would also contend that (over 1500 years) the Roman church has “picked and choosen” whatever patristic doctrines it likes, such that the doctrines it now considers representative of the church fathers are, in fact, highly selective and subjective.
You wrote: You will see in the totality of their writings that they are “most definitely Catholic” with a capital “C”.
My response: Gerry, I do not doubt your sincerity in making this claim, but I must respond by saying that this is simply wishful thinking. You are reading your views back into church history, and not the other way around. The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today evolved into what it is over hundreds of years. It is anachronistic to think men like Irenaeus were “Catholic” in the same sense as the cardinals and popes of today.
The history that you gave (though interesting) seems to be irrelevant to this discussion, and would not be disputed by most Protestants (even if we may change the terminology a little). The fact that the Roman Catholic Church looks back on these men favorably (as do most Protestants) does not change the substance of their teaching, nor does it diminish the force of the citations I provided earlier.
I am glad you cited Irenaeus regarding the “tradition of the apostles” since we will look at that specifically tomorrow.
I should add that I do appreciate your desire to dialogue about these important matters. I hope that you do not feel that I am attacking you personally, even if I strongly disagree with your position. As I stated earlier, I doubt neither your sincerity or your good intentions. At the same time, I believe that your faith has been misplaced. Last week when you wrote: “I challenge anyone to find the current protestant beliefs and practices before the 1500’s” — I could not help but issue a response.
- NB
Nate,
I don’t think Clement “flatly denies” especially when you take a look a the rest of his writing…and I think this is what Gerry’s point is.
Also, when it comes to Popes speaking ex cathedra, which they are only permitted to do on matters strictly having to do with faith and morals, there are only two subjects that I’m aware of in which Popes have spoken ex cathedra: the Assumption of Mary and her Emmaculate Conception.
Jesse,
When it comes to whether non-Christians are saved or not, rest assured the Church still believes, and has consistently believed that people are only saved through Jesus Christ. However, there has been some nuanced (my favorite word lately) understanding of this in recent years. Even though someone may not know Christ, but wills what Christ wills - even though they maybe ignorant, still may be saved. This in no way means that someone ultimately can be saved without Jesus. As Christians we are obliged to hope that all are saved (to do otherwise would be contrary to the love Christ).
Nate,
I think it should be stated that although Chuch fathers may disagree on matters, there is above and beyond this the official teachings of the Church. The fact that they disagree is does not change their understanding of what the Church is.
Chad,
Thanks for your comments.
I would disagree with your assessment of Clement. His other writings do not support the synergistic works-righteousness found in Roman theology. It is true that Clement speaks of true faith being a repentant faith. But Protestants would whole-heartedly agree. Nonetheless, Clement is clear that the basis for our justification is not found in ourselves, our wisdom, or our works.
Perhaps at this point, some will feel that Clement is the only church father who defines justification in a way that accords directly with the Protestant understanding of sola fide. But this is not the case. See here for a plethora of similar citations from other leading fathers.
One of my favorites comes from Augustine, who said: “Men are not saved by good works, nor by the free determination of their own will, but by the grace of God through faith.”
Hope that helps,
NB
Chad,
Thanks for the help understanding this. I just have a hard time with “nuanced” when it comes to lines like: “If anyone then says that by divine right that the blessed Peter does not have perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of the blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.” (Vatican Council of 1825).
Last week on this website I had Catholics telling me that that Protestants are no longer anathema. This week there are Catholics saying that the official teachings of the church are infallible. I am left wondering if I am still anathematized. Previous councils/popes were infallible, and (in the sources quoted above) they very clearly taught there is no salvation apart from Roman authority. Now, they want to include Muslims and even Baptists (!) in, but they want to do so without seeming like they are contradicting their history. I’m not sure if the word “nuanced” has enough weight to pull the transition off.
Thanks Chad.
Nate, John, Jesse and others..
Nate, You said: 1) Clement flatly denies that our justification before God comes from any of our works, wisdom, understanding, godliness, or anything in ourselves. Instead, it is through faith. That is the doctrine of sola fide. And it runs in direct contradiction to the Roman Catholic teaching that justification is synergistic — depending both on faith and on good works.
I say: St. Clement did state Catholic Doctorine correctly. What you did was take his statement on the importance of faith out of context and insert your own “alone”. He did not say “faith alone”, you did. Let’s look at it again below:
And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen
**Where does it say “faith alone”?
Your # 2A: a) Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Eugene IV all declared ex cathedra that no one outside of the Catholic Church could be saved.
I say: You misunderstand/misinterpret the statement that “No salvation outside of The Catholic Church”
The following I have copied/pasted from Catholic answers:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).
Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.
Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.
The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
Justin Martyr
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).
St Augustine:
“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (ibid., 4:21[28]).
“The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).
You said: So who is wrong here? Are the popes wrong, or is the mainstream teaching of the church wrong? If the church is infallible and the popes are infallible than why do they contradict one another?
I say: It must be remembered that the Church’s decrees are directed toward its members, not those outside the Church. Catholics are to be guided by the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church by Christ. Catholics do not have the moral freedom to pick and choose what they must believe or how they must behave. So the term “No salvation outside of The Catholic Church” again refers to Catholics who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
Jesse, you said: Can infants who are not baptized be saved if they die? John Paul II said yes (EV:99; 3/25/95); St. Zosimus (the 41st Pope if you count Peter) said no (D.102).
I say: Again, these pronouncements were not made “ex cathedra” so the popes can disagree apart from “binding doctorine” or “Dogma”.
Jesse, you said: Reading any history of popes is not for the faint of heart. Some were immoral doctrinally: Honorius rejected the humanity of Christ; Liberius outright rejected both the Trinity and Athanasius as an individual. Several Popes were immoral sexually (John XII and John XXIII, as well as Benedict IX being the worst examples). But, those denials and that immorality were not part of their “official function of the church” so people who were perverted doctrinally and personally can still be said to be infallible. When the doctrine of infallibility can be stretched to cover immoral men, heretical views, as well as contradictions, the doctrine ceases to be doctrinal, and instead becomes practical and flawed
I say: I agree that there were very immoral popes and Honorius may have held heretical views, BUT they never taught error. Concerning Honorius, Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all (concerning the humanity of Christ). To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.
Concerning Liberius, (New Advent) It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Nate, you said: For example, what do we do when they disagree with each other? What do we do when some of them were regarded as heretics (like Origen) or antipopes (like Hippolytus)? What do we do when they disagree with contemporary Roman theology?
I say: They can disagree with each other. As I said in earlier posts, the early church fathers writings in totality show the consistent teachings of The Church from the beginning concerning faith and morals. Again, I find it intellectually dishonest for you to selectively pick parts of quotes that you think prove your point concerning sola fide and sola scriptura and think that protestantism was believed in early Church. It clearly was not. I have quoted the “reformers” on their beliefs in Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity, but I wouldn’t consider them Catholic. The totality of the early father’s writings clearly prove their beliefs in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, The Primacy of Peter and the office of the Pope, Papal Infallibility, Apostolic succession, the seven sacraments, the belief that The Eucharist is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, Scripture and Tradition, Mary and the saints, etc…
Nate, you said: The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today evolved into what it is over hundreds of years. It is anachronistic to think men like Irenaeus were “Catholic” in the same sense as the cardinals and popes of today.
I say: Let’s look at what else Irenaeus had to say: Let’s see how Catholic he sounds..
Irenaeus on the Sacrifice of The Mass
“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus on Regenerative Baptism
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Irenaeus on the authority of The Pope (Bishop of Rome)
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
I’ll save Apostolic succession for tomorrow..
Nate,
You said: One of my favorites comes from Augustine, who said: “Men are not saved by good works, nor by the free determination of their own will, but by the grace of God through faith.”
I say: That is and has always been Catholic teaching. Please also find his writings below on good works not be wanting in those who believe (just as scripture says, “Faith working through love”)
Let’s look at some of St. Augustine’s other writings circa 420 A.D: Chap 67 and 69 also mentions the “punishment by fire” (Purgatory)
Chapter 67. Faith Without Works is Dead, and Cannot Save a Man
It is believed, moreover, by some, that men who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who have been baptized in the Church by His baptism, and who have never been cut off from the Church by any schism or heresy, though they should live in the grossest sin and never either wash it away in penitence nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in it persistently to the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire; that is, that although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lasting for a time proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds, they shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believe this, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be led astray by a kind of benevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, when consulted, gives a very different answer. I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love.” But if it works evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it is dead, being alone.” The same apostle says again, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;” then faith without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; shall inherit the kingdom of God.” For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Chapter 69. It is Not Impossible that Some Believers May Pass Through a Purgatorial Fire in the Future Life.
And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they “shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say “suitable,” I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom,” and to the latter, “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire.”
Chapter 31. Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.
And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in another place that he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful,” here also adds: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” And lest it should be thought that good works will not be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” We shall be made truly free, then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men—for He has done that already—but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in Christ Jesus, according as it is said: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” For God had already created his heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart is concerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which was still lingering in his heart.
Chapter 43. Baptism and the Grace Which It Typifies are Open to All, Both Infants and Adults.
For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. But infants die only to original sin; those who are older die also to all the sins which their evil lives have added to the sin which they brought with them
Chapter 52. In Baptism, Which is the Similitude of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, All, Both Infants and Adults, Die to Sin that They May Walk in Newness of Life.
“Do you not know,” he says, “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death?” If, then, the fact that we were baptized into the death of Christ proves that we are dead to sin, it follows that even infants who are baptized into Christ die to sin, being baptized into His death. For there is no exception made: “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death.” And this is said to prove that we are dead to sin. Now, to what sin do infants die in their regeneration but that sin which they bring with them at birth?
Chapter 65. God Pardons Sins, But on Condition of Penitence, Certain Times for Which Have Been Fixed by the Law of the Church.
But even crimes themselves, however great, may be remitted in the Holy Church; and the mercy of God is never to be despaired of by men who truly repent, each according to the measure of his sin. And in the act of repentance, where a crime has been committed of such a nature as to cut off the sinner from the body of Christ, we are not to take account so much of the measure of time as of the measure of sorrow; for a broken and a contrite heart God does not despise. But as the grief of one heart is frequently hid from another, and is not made known to others by words or other signs, when it is manifest to Him of whom it is
said, “My groaning is not hid from You,” those who govern the Church have rightly appointed times of penitence, that the Church in which the sins are remitted may be satisfied; and outside the Church sins are not remitted. For the Church alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit, without which there is no remission of sins—such, at least, as brings the pardoned to eternal life.
Chapter 109. The State of the Soul During the Interval Between Death and the Resurrection.
During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man’s death and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth.
Chapter 110. The Benefit to the Souls of the Dead from the Sacraments and Alms of Their Living Friends.
Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead are benefited by the piety of their living friends, who offer the sacrifice of the Mediator, or give alms in the church on their behalf. But these services are of advantage only to those who during their lives have earned such merit, that services of this kind can help them. For there is a manner of life which is neither so good as not to require these services after death, nor so bad that such services are of no avail after death; there is, on the other hand, a kind of life so good as not to require them; and again, one so bad that when life is over they render no help. Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demerit is acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man’s sufferings after this life. No one, then, need hope that after he is dead he shall obtain merit with God which he has neglected to secure here. And accordingly it is plain that the services which the church celebrates for the dead are in no way opposed to the apostle’s words: “For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad;” for the merit which renders such services as I speak of profitable to a man, is earned while he lives in the body. It is not to every one that these services are profitable. And why are they not profitable to all, except because of the different kinds of lives that men lead in the body? When, then, sacrifices either of the altar or of alms are offered on behalf of all the baptized dead, they are thank-offerings for the very good, they are propitiatory offerings for the not very bad, and in the case of the very bad, even though they do not assist the dead, they are a species of consolation to the living. And where they are profitable, their benefit consists either in obtaining a full remission of sins, or at least in making the condemnation more tolerable.
@ Gerry
You have yet to est. the crucial fact that the early father’s you quote -Augustine and Justin Martyr- are in fact talking about Rome.
Of course, no one is going to be saved outside the universal/catholic church (not Catholic/Rome), b/c BY DEFINITION to be saved is equal to being part of the church.
To be fair, you’ve been asked lots of questions, so its not hard to see why you haven’t really addressed this point very well, but it is at the crux of many of your arguments.
Catholic Church of the Early fathers DO NOT EQUAL ROME.
That said:
) are wrong it is everyone OUTSIDE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT IS NOT SAVED, according to many Popes.
You and Gerry Matatics (unless you guys are the same person
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church — not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics — cannot share in eternal life, and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgivings and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
(Ex cathedra solemn definition of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (Ecumenical Council), “Cantate Domino,” 1441; Denzinger)
I couldn’t find anymore, but I know there are many more quotes and though I can’t prove it right now, many of the other quoted Popes, are indeed talking about Rome and not the universal church in their comments. Esp. quotes during times of great strife btwn Catholics and Protestants - they def. meant Rome then…
Nate,
Back to Clement…
You said: Nonetheless, it is your agreement with Clement’s quote that I find so surprising.
Clement flatly denies that our justification before God comes from any of our works, wisdom, understanding, godliness, or anything in ourselves. Instead, it is through faith. That is the doctrine of sola fide. And it runs in direct contradiction to the Roman Catholic teaching that justification is synergistic — depending both on faith and on good works.
When Clement says . . .
And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
. . . does that really sound like Roman Catholic theology? It sounds a lot more like Luther or Calvin than it does Tetzel, Trent, or any of the medieval popes (who are all “infallible”). It also sounds exactly like the apostle Paul in Romans
Obviuosly you left out his writings right after the above which I shall add below:
Chapter 33. But Let Us Not Give Up the Practice of Good Works and Love. God Himself is an Example to Us of Good Works.
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immovable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him—the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: “Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:26-27 Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.” Genesis 1:28 We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.
Chapter 34. Great is the Reward of Good Works with God. Joined Together in Harmony, Let Us Implore that Reward from Him.
The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture says, “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, Daniel 7:10 and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory.” Isaiah 6:3 And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] says, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for them that wait for Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Again, the “totality” of their writings not selected “sound bites” leaving off “the rest of the story”.
Gerry,
Unless I missed some crucial words while reading those additional Clement quotes it didn’t sound like he was saying that the works participate in the salvation process. Rather is sounded like Paul who wrote Ephesians 2:8-9 (means of salvation), which is followed by vs. 10 (effects/results of salvation). As you likely know the Protestant position (well, the Lordship position) is not that works are irrelevant, but simply that they are fruit. So one is saved by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9, and Nate’s quote of Clement), and that salvation leads one follow up with works of righteousness (Eph. 2:10, your Clement quotes). If your quotes are directly after Nate’s quote, I find the initial word “But” interesting. Seems like if works were added to faith he would have said “and”. In other words, what came before was how salvation is effected, but just because we have no part in it doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility as a result of it (he no doubt is echoing Romans 6).
The rest of this discussion is way beyond my knowledge so I won’t add anything there, but my only comment is I find it disturbing that one can not discount the Popes mentioned who lead immoral lives or believed unorthodox doctrines (even if they didn’t “teach” them). It seems like it would be no different than a pastor having an affair, but as long as he teaches marital faithfulness from the pulpit its ok. Now I’m not saying that you’re saying those things were ok in the Pope’s lives… but when it comes to considering Popes infallible at any time in any way it seems like they should be disqualified and/or excommunicated even if the merely believe (and not just avoid teaching) unorthodox theology or live outwardly sinful lives.
But… that’s not a rebuttle of any means… just a comment.
Gerry,
Your extended quotes from Augustine and Clement (regarding the ethics that flow from true faith) do not contradict the Protestant principle of sola fide. Based on what you have written, it appears that you do not understand the Protestant teaching of sola fide. If you did, you would realize that evangelical Protestants would be in full agreement with what Clement wrote in chapters 33 and 34.
Clement was not teaching that good works merit justifying grace before God. Rather, he was teaching that good works are a necessary result in the lives of those who are saved. They are the fruit of saving faith, not the means of it. Theologically, this is known as lordship salvation, and it is standard Protestant soteriology. Luther and Calvin are in complete agreement with Clement’s letter (as are the Reformed confessions of Augsburg, Heidelburg, and Westminster).
***
If you think that the Protestant understanding of sola fide renders good works unnecessary in the life of the Christian, you have misunderstood what the Reformers actually taught. The Reformers taught that good works do not merit eternal life — salvation is by faith alone. But those who are truly saved will evidence their faith in the fruits of repentance.
This is precisely what Clement of Rome taught in the entirety of his letter. Justification is not by works. But those who have been justified are called to a life of repentance and obedience.
Your final comment about patristic “sound bites” made me smile. Ad hominem arguments do not carry much weight around here. If you would like me to quote long sections from the church fathers I can certainly do so (though it does tend to make the comments a bit long).
Clement could not have stated it any clearer when he wrote:
Does he use the word “alone?” No. But he does say we “are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works.” Our justification takes place apart from these things. It takes place by faith apart from works.
That is sola fide.
- NB
John,
You said: You have yet to est. the crucial fact that the early father’s you quote -Augustine and Justin Martyr- are in fact talking about Rome
I say:
Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Even if they didn’t mention Rome (which Augustine does several times above), it would be a non- issue, since they believed and taught the Catholic faith (Augustine was a Catholic Bishop of Hippo and sat in on the Council Of Carthage) and Justin Martyr was just that a Martyr for the faith in Rome.
Augustine
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Just a quick question:
In the cases of Honorius, Liberius, John XII, John XXIII, Benedict IX:
Gerry you said “I agree that there were very immoral popes and Honorius may have held heretical views, BUT they never taught error.”
Did they teach synergism of faith and works?
Since they couldn’t teach “error”, they had to teach that correct?
Let’s look at this from a non-catholic, non-protestant, open mindset. You are saying that these men were infallible in teaching, teachings that included a works/faith based salvation. However in their own lives they did not merit such a salvation. The immoral trio of John, John and Benedict especially stick out. But what you are saying is that you have popes that taught against their own lives. If the current pope was caught tomorrow in a homosexual lifestyle, what would that mean? If your telling the world through your own posts that Catholic popes can teach one thing and live another, why should anyone live differently. Your argument has circled to the point where you are saying that they justify themselves by being pope, while missing the argument on whether there should be a pope. If you can’t seperate, according to you, faith/works for salvation then you are saying you have unsaved popes. So the message is as long as you teach one thing, you are infallible. How can a man such as these popes be seen in such a way? Did the Apostles or Jesus live one way and teach another? As strict as the RCC is on it’s people for a works based salvation, under their own tennets they have unsaved popes. These popes would even fall short of Clements statements on the fruits of salvation, his “Protestant” writings…
Dave,
You bring up good points that are important to restate. (A little sample from Catholic Answers below):
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his positi