"'Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term' (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375])." Link

What is Basil referring to? Judging by the claims of the RCC and the arguments of this Catholic Answers article, you might think Basil was referring to things like papal infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, and privately confessing all sins to a priest. (emphasis mine)

The previous quotation from Catholic Answers makes no such claim. The point of the argument given in the quotation is simply that the Church Fathers recognized Tradition as something necessary; not something nebulous that couldn’t be trusted and was, therefore, subservient to the Scriptures. Catholic Answers isn’t giving a treatise on the question of whether or not doctrines such as Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, and Sacramental Confession are historical and derived from tradition. To bring these into the discussion is a red-herring.

The point is, rather, was unwritten Tradition viewed as something necessary to the Christian life, and did it carry the same weight in the teaching of the Church as Scripture? The previous quote from Basil answers “yes” to both of these questions.

Having already set up the reader to believe that Basil rejected Catholic claims on the above doctrines, JE goes on to explain what he believes Basil really meant by Tradition:

But, instead, here's what Basil writes *just after* what Catholic Answers quoted:
"For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents." (The Holy Spirit, 27:66)

Basil refers to relatively minor practices, some of which Roman Catholics don't follow.

To say that Basil is referring only to “relatively minor practices” is nonsense. We just read Basil’s statement in the earlier quotation that “dogmas,” and not just minor practices, also come down to us by “unwritten” tradition and are “preserved” in the Church. A dogma is not a “relatively minor practice” that can be dispensed with; it’s something that is held on to and never changes.

He explains that these things are silent and secret mysteries, hidden traditions. Though the Catholic Answers article cites 2 Timothy 2:2, these traditions of Basil are not the *public* apostolic teachings Paul refers to in that passage.

This misses the point. Though Basil voices his contention that many customs have come to us through, “silent and mystical tradition,” his main emphasis is the contention that both unwritten tradition -which could be public or private - and written tradition, in tandem, comprise a body of authoritative teaching that must be held on to if we would not, “unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals.”

Despite what Basil says in the passage quoted by Catholic Answers, he advocates sola scriptura elsewhere. For example:

"Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right." (Letter 283)

Regardless of whether one argues that Basil advocated sola scriptura consistently, inconsistently, or not at all, the fact remains that he contradicted the Roman Catholic view of tradition.

This is what we ultimately run into. Instead of seeing the obvious fact that Basil believed that both the unwritten and written teachings must be held on to, the advocate for a “sola- scriptura - believing church” has to come to the untenable conclusion that Basil either held to sola scriptura “consistently, inconsistently, or not at all.” What’s interesting is the only thing called “all-sufficient” in the above quotation is the “guidance of the Holy Spirit,” not the Scriptures.

And how can Basil‘s supposed advocacy of sola scriptura be gleaned from this earlier quote?:

“we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.”

I know of no advocate of sola scriptura who would say that he is not, “content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded.” If JE can show us any defenders of sola scriptura who have no qualms with that sentiment, I’d like to know about it. With statements such as these, it’s easy to see that JE’s contentions that Basil advocated sola scriptura and rejected the Catholic concept of tradition are easily dismissible.

JE also uses a quote from John of Damascus to argue along similar lines:

John of Damascus (tradition, 10/25/02)

10/25/02

John of Damascus wrote:

"All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable. Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season , viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from every vice." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)
He refers to *every* virtue and vice being addressed in scripture. He seems to be advocating sola scriptura. Yet, elsewhere in the same document, he says:

"Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle. And to the the [sic] traditions as I have delivered them to you." (4:16)

Shortly before these comments, he gives us some examples of what he's referring to:

"For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady [Mary], and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things." (4:16)

While *some* of the traditions he refers to are accepted by Roman Catholics, other traditions aren't. In a previous segment in this series, I documented that John of Damascus disagreed with the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, which is another example of his concept of tradition differing from the RCC's.

We hear a lot from JE about the “RCC’s concept of tradition” and how the Fathers contradicted that definition, but we are never told how. Neither Trent nor Vatican II ever claimed that the Church Fathers were without disagreement - either with themselves or with more recent statements of dogma given by the Church. How is it then that JE thinks he’s won the day when he finds such examples of disagreement? Of course there were disagreements among the Fathers just as there are disagreements among Catholics today. The Church in her statements on Tradition are simply re-echoing what the Fathers taught, namely, that the “dogmas and kerygmas” that we hold in the Church have come down to us from two sources - the written and the unwritten. These Fathers knew that there were disagreements among themselves, but that did not stop them from claiming that tradition was something that must be followed, and that it had the “same force“ as the written teaching. Likewise, the Catholic Church of today, though aware of the disagreements between her past adherents and her current adherents, also recognizes with the early Church that the teaching of Christ and the apostles has come to us in the above-mentioned written and unwritten forms. To deny this is to put yourself in disagreement with the early Church.

JE continues

However John of Damascus viewed the authority of scripture, we know that his definition of tradition contradicted the RCC's definition.

Again, JE needs to show us how.

On Theodoret:

Theodoret (tradition, 9/26/02)

9/26/02

Roman Catholic apologists often quote something a church father said about some source of authority other than scripture, and they point to it as a rejection of sola scriptura. For example, one Catholic apologist cited the following passage from Theodoret in a discussion with me:

"So have I learnt not only from the apostles and prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance, styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees." (Letter 89)

Do such comments prove that Theodoret was a Roman Catholic who rejected sola scriptura? No, and Roman Catholic apologists would realize the irrelevance of this passage from Theodoret if they paid more attention to details. A person can believe in the authority of parents, government officials, church leaders, creeds, etc. without thereby rejecting sola scriptura. I'm referring to the concept of subordinate authority, authorities that are below other authorities. Parents, for example, have authority over a child, but they aren't as authoritative as scripture.

No one disagrees that authorities such as government officials, parents, and even church leaders are authorities that are in some way subordinate to a higher standard. What JE has to prove is that the Creeds and Dogmas of Ecumenical Councils, etc., were ‘subordinate’ to the Scriptures. There are numerous examples of the Fathers saying that Scripture refutes the teachings of heretics and so on, but we never see a Church Father holding to the theory that a Council such as Nicaea may or may not contain error. I’ve seen no quote given by a Church Father in JE’s series that even comes close to entertaining such a notion. We’ve already seen in this discussion that Church Fathers such as Basil refer to the written and unwritten traditions as having the ‘same force.’ Both the written and the unwritten teaching given by the apostles and their successors were viewed as the ’words of God.’ (I Thess. 2:13) JE needs to show us one quote - just one - that shows us that the Fathers of the Early Church believed that Ecumenical Councils and Creeds could be in error, and therefore, were ‘subordinate authorities.’ I’ve seen no such statement from the Fathers put forth by JE to substantiate his assertion that the Fathers viewed these things to be ‘subordinate authorities.’

When Theodoret refers to the scripture interpretations of his predecessors and the teachings of Nicaea, he's referring to subordinate authorities, not the Roman Catholic concept of an unbiblical tradition that's just as authoritative as scripture.

Interesting. I never knew that Catholic Dogma held that ’unbiblical’ tradition is just as authoritative as Scripture. Also, where does Theodoret say in the above passage that the Council of Nicaea is a ‘subordinate authority?’

The fact that Catholic apologists so often quote patristic passages such as this one from Theodoret, as if they support Roman Catholicism, is more evidence that they don't even understand the issues they're discussing and that they aren't paying much attention to details.