Augustine-

St. Augustine is also quoted by Mr. Engwer in the following words:

Augustine (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/27/02)

7/27/02

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

This is another instance of trying to make a church father look as if he’s saying something different than what the Catholic Church believes regarding scriptural interpretation. Can Mr. Engwer name any Catholic apologist who doesn’t believe that ‘plainer expressions’ of scripture can ‘throw light upon the more obscure?’ I know of none. Mr. Engwer is missing the whole point. Of course obscure passages of scripture can be opened up and explained by the plainer passages of scripture. What Mr. Engwer needs to prove is that when a dispute arose in the early Church regarding these ‘plain passages of scripture’ the mode for solving the controversy rested in the authority of the canonical scriptures alone, without any recourse to a “nebulous” tradition. However, we find Augustine stating just the opposite. It in a related passage, Augustine writes the following:

“Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of scripture, and from the authority of the Church,...”

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2)

This is a very ‘plain’ statement that expresses Augustine’s belief in a rule of faith that existed outside the canonical scriptures alone. We can see in this passage that Augustine’s understanding of the perspicuity of scripture was much different than what Mr. Engwer portrays it to be. The authority of the Church is inseparably linked to the Scriptures as a “rule of faith.” Augustine himself says that he would not even believe the gospel “except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 5:6)

Mr. Engwer also brings Basil to the fore.

Basil (the perspicuity of scripture, 9/27/02)

9/27/02

Basil contradicted the popular Roman Catholic argument that scripture is insufficient for proving Trinitarian doctrine:

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

9/28/02

Once again Mr. Engwer presents us with a “Scriptural Proof = Sola Scriptura” argument. Every time Scriptural teaching is extolled, those of Mr. Engwer’s persuasion immediately assume that the Church Father in question is rejecting any idea of a Church that teaches infallibly. Once again, it’s the passages from Basil that are ignored in Mr. Engwer’s series that give us the whole truth.

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.”

(Basil, Epistle to the Canonicae, 52:1)

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas 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 reduce unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kerygma to a mere term.”

(Basil, On the Spirit, 27:66) emphasis mine

From these quotes it’s easy to determine what Basil really believed concerning Scripture. He didn’t believe that Scripture, in and of itself, was the only norm for dogmas and kerygmas. No, he unflinchingly states that both the written teaching and the tradition of the Apostles have the same force. To my knowledge, no one in Basils’ day said that this teaching of his was “unscriptural.” What’s more, no one called this tradition “nebulous” or demanded that Basil define the “extent” of that tradition because of the disagreements or apparent contradictions between Basil’s teaching and the teachings of another Church Father. It’s obvious that Basil did not believe that tradition was merely useful; he believed it was just as authoritative as Scripture. Basil considered tradition so important that he specifically states that it’s rejection would “unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals.”; hardly a sentiment in line with Protestant theology.

Irenaeus is also used to buttress evangelical theology:

Irenaeus (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/24/02)

7/24/02

"A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in acquaintance with them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures....the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:27:1-2)

Again, no Catholic apologist I know of would disagree with this statement. I wholeheartedly believe that the Scriptures “can be clearly, unambiguously , and harmoniously understood by all.” Where I , (and yes, Irenaeus), draw the line is when one starts claiming that no other infallible authority exists but the Bible alone to solve disputes over it’s teaching. Irenaeus had his own troubles with those who felt they knew better than the Church:

“By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.”

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies)

Yes, the scriptures can be understood “clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously.” But where do we go when there is a debate over it’s meaning? Irenaeus gives a thoroughly Catholic answer to this dilemma:

“For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

The interpretation of Scripture is certainly an “important question“. Irenaeus does not bellow that these Churches and the traditions they hold are “nebulous” or “fallible“. He specifically writes that the truths he learns from these Churches are “certain and clear.” How could this be if he believed that only the Scriptures alone were infallible? Can “certain and clear” answers on matters of importance be authoritatively given to the faithful from a source outside the Scriptures? Irenaeus’ answer is, Yes. He specifically states that when a dispute arises we can’t just say, “well, it’s not written so it’s not a matter of importance to me.” No, Irenaeus teaches that it is “necessary” to “follow the course of the tradition which they [the Churches] handed down,” especially when the written teachings alone do not answer the question.

As we can see from the examples above, the Church Fathers did not have the same view of the “perspicuity” of the Scriptures that Mr. Engwer does. Time and time again we can see that the Fathers understood that when a dispute arises it is to the Church that we must go to solve the dispute. If the Fathers of the Church could make such bold claims for the place of tradition, despite the disagreements among themselves, why is it that Mr. Engwer faults the Catholic Church of today for making the same claims for tradition? Do we have our disagreements? - you bet, I won’t claim otherwise. But, in spite of our disagreements, we know where to go when a dispute arises - it’s the same place that Irenaeus, Basil, and Augustine told us to go when there is a controversy over doctrine - the Church.

Tradition

In the proceeding discussion we have touched on a few quotes from the Fathers that give evidence of their belief in the authoritative role of tradition. We have seen that even though the Fathers had their disagreements, they still believed that tradition was a sure guide in determining the truth.

Certain questions naturally arise as regards tradition: Why did the Fathers make such claims for tradition if, in fact, they came to contradictory conclusions based on that tradition? What happened in the early church when these sorts of disagreements arose? How were the problems solved? When an authoritative decision came from the church on such disagreements did the Fathers recant their previous objections, or did they instead claim that councils and tradition are fallible and therefore are too untrustworthy as to demand the assent of Christians. I’ll touch on all of these points as we go along.

Let’s again venture into the writings of the Fathers beginning with Athanasius.

Mr. Engwer (JE from now on) gives the following citations from Athanasius:

Athanasius (tradition, 6/16/02)

6/16/02

Athanasius wrote:

"These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." (Festal Letter 39:6)

From this quote it is inferred that the scriptures alone contain the “doctrine of godliness,” and that other voices such as tradition would be an abominable supplement to this “doctrine of godliness.” Is this how Athanasius viewed tradition? I think not. Consider the following quote:

Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church’; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles

(Letter on the Councils of Arminium and Selucia)

We can see from this quote that Athanasius did not consider all councils to be fallible. He declares that the confession of faith rests upon the statement “Thus believes the Catholic Church.”

Athanasius also used very exalting language as regards councils. In reference to the Council of Nicea, Athanasius wrote:

The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church.

(Ad Afros 1)

Here we can see that in the eyes of Athanasius, tradition also was called “sufficient...by itself.” Athanasius did not hold to the evangelical view that only Scripture was sufficient for the “subversion of all irreligious heresy,” since he uses the same strong words in reference to a council of the Church.

Athanasius also gives this authority to the Church Herself in her decision on the Trinity at Nicea:

But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.

(Ad Serapion 1:28)

Athanasius also testifies to the fact that the Council was needed to clarify the teaching of Scripture:

Yes, it behooved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops [at Nicea], as I said before, to publish [i.e. the non-scriptural phrase ‘one in essence’] more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion.

(Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition)

Notice that Athanasius didn’t claim that the Scripture alone overthrew the irreligion of those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. No, Athanasius had no qualms about saying that a more distinct definition from the Bishops overthrew the teaching of the heretics.

It’s interesting to note that Athanasius had his reasons for going to tradition to prove his case: The main reason is because his opponents, the Arians, were using Scripture to prove their doctrine that Christ was a creature. Athanasius goes to great length to show that Scripture must be coupled with tradition if it is to be interpreted correctly:

But after him [the devil] and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them or their power.

If we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of the inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think. Let us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation.

(Athanasius, Discourse against the Arians I & III)

We can see here that yardstick that Athanasius uses to determine whether or not an interpretation of Scripture is orthodox is to see if it conforms to what “the saints have handed down.”

Athanasius also aptly remarked on how wrenching Scripture away from the teaching office of the Church always results in dissension:

For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various discordant changes.

(Athanasius, Councils of Arminium and Seleucia)

We can see from these quotes that Athanasius did not hold to Evangelicalism’s insistence on Scripture alone as being the only infallible authority. Athanasius refers to councils and their decisions as being “sufficient” - something an advocate of sola scriptura would never do. The question for Athanasius is not only, ‘Is it Scriptural?’ but also, ‘Is it Apostolic?’ Athanasius incessantly asks his detractors, ‘Is what you believe handed down?’ Can JE trace his particular beliefs on the role of Scripture and tradition, and a host of other Catholic doctrines back to the days of the apostles and early church? If not, then according to Athanasius, he “would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called

JE also gives his spin on the teachings of Basil concerning tradition:

Basil (tradition, 6/17/02)

6/17/02

In a Catholic Answers article on tradition, we read the following:

"The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of [apostolic] succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp)

The article goes on to quote some church fathers, such as the following from Basil,without any further explanation:

"'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])." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp)

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.

Of course, the Church reserves the right to change practices as she sees fit. What JE has to prove is that the dogma that was held by the early Church Fathers, including Basil, has been changed by modern Catholicism. Just because Basil refers here to “minor practices” that were derived from Tradition, this does not mean that Basil rejected certain dogmas that were also derived from that same body of tradition, or that tradition was viewed by Basil as a reliable source of teaching only as regards Church practice, but not dogma.

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.

I’d submit to the reader that one who believes that an original revelation was given to the apostles, yet denies the teaching given by the Fathers as regards how that revelation is transmitted is the one who “doesn’t understand the issues they’re discussing.” If JE really believes that an “original revelation that must be followed” was given to the apostles, then he should be able to show us what that revelation is, who followed it in the early Church, and who, specifically, was responsible for tainting the original message. I’ve seen no such evidence presented by JE . I’ve seen instead that a vast majority of the Fathers quoted by JE give quotes that betray JE’s position. If Fathers such as Athanasius and Basil really believed that sacred tradition was a subordinate authority, I would expect to see their writings dripping with explicit statements of that belief. I find none. We instead find that Athanasius believed that a Council was “sufficient” to combat heresy; Augustine believed that not only the Scriptures but the “authority of the Church” was also a “rule of faith“; we find Irenaeus teaching that “recourse to the ancient Churches” is where we must go when a dispute arises among believers; we find Basil teaching that dogmas that are held in the Church come from two forms, the written and the unwritten, which both carry “the same force.” If Basil really believed that the unwritten tradition contained the same teachings as the written, then it would be superfluous for him to mention the two separately, but he does.

We could go on and on. What has become obvious is that this whole debate hinges upon is how the Church Fathers viewed the Church and her authority. JE began this series by stating, quite correctly, that Evangelicals and Catholics have radically different views of Church History. JE misunderstands the Fathers because he misunderstands the nature and mission of the Church. The Fathers were very aware of the promises that were made to the Church by Christ, and they viewed the manifestation of the Church’s claim to teach with His authority to be a fulfillment of those promises. To follow the successors of the apostles was to follow the apostles themselves. One could not reject their authority without rejecting the authority of the Lord himself. The promises made to the apostles - and by extension their successors - do not allow for such rejection of their teachings on the premise that their teachings somehow held a ‘subordinate authority.’ So, it is to the Fathers’ teachings on the nature and the mission of the Church that we must go to conclude and summarize this section of the series. The following posts will be strictly dedicated to that purpose.

Augustine-

Let’s look at a few quotes from Augustine to get an idea of how this great Bishop viewed the Church:

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity.

(On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens, 1:6)

We can see from this quote that Augustine didn’t understand the Church as a body that could teach error and heresy at weak points in its history. He specifically says that “all” heresies have gone out of it. The idea that the Church could teach heresy was a fiction to Augustine. The pure truth, and salvation, was to be found only in the Catholic Church:

We believe also in The Holy Church, assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor.

(On Faith and the Creed, Chap. 10)

and...

One cannot have [salvation] except in the Catholic Church. Outside of the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing the alleluia, one can answer Amen, one can have the Gospel, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and preach, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.

(Sermon to the People of the Church of Caeserea, Chap. 6)

These powerful statements from Augustine show that the Church, and by extension her teaching authority, was something that could not be dispensed with. Even the possession of the Gospel itself, according to Augustine, was not enough. Where the Church is, there is salvation. Can this Church be recognized by certain notes? Augustine says, yes:

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith) - not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

(Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chap. 4)

and...

You [Vincent] imagine you are saying something clever when you derive the name Catholic, not from its universal membership in the world, but from the observance of all divine commands and all the sacraments, as if we rely on the meaning of the word to prove that the Church is world-wide, and not rather on the promise of God, and on so many and such clear pronouncements of truth itself. Yet it does happen that the Church is called Catholic, too, because it embraces all truth, and there are even some fragments of this truth to be found in different heresies.

(Letters, No. 93)

Now, does what you have just read line up with the understanding of the Church JE has presented in his series? I don’t believe it does. Augustine taught that the Church is recognized as a “world-wide” church, something JE implicitly denies existed in his opening remarks to his series. Remember, in contrasting the Evangelical understanding of Church history with the Catholic understanding, JE writes:

The evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that there's been one worldwide denomination centered in Rome since the time of the apostles. They believe that the church fathers were members of that denomination, and that all of the teachings of the apostles were passed on in an unbroken succession.

Well, the reason Catholics believe such things is that Fathers, like Augustine, claimed such things for the Church. I don’t see that Augustine gave any credence to the belief that he was somehow autonomous from a world-wide denomination that is comprised of a hierarchy that claims to teach in the name of Jesus and the Apostles. The fact that the Church “embraces all truth” - or an “original revelation” if that’s what we want to call it - is only one mark of the Church according to this Father. It is not just the possession of truth that Augustine considered to be an essential mark of the Church, but also other marks such as, “the consent of peoples and nations...,” “...her authority...,” “...the succession of priests...,” and “...the name itself of Catholic...” All of these things were considered to be important distinguishing marks of the true Church to Augustine. This understanding of the Church is a far-cry from the understanding presented by JE of an “invisible” church, to which we’ll now momentarily turn.

One is left perplexed as to what JE understands the Fathers to be teaching in some of his quotes. In one example, JE quotes Protestant historian Philip Schaff as follows:

Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, ...

Yet, in another post we read:

Augustine refers to the invisible church: (emphasis mine)

"But the enemies of this brotherly love, whether they are openly without, or appear to be within, are false Christians, and antichrists. For when they have found an opportunity, they go out, as it is written: 'A man wishing to separate himself from his friends, seeketh opportunities.' But even if occasions are wanting, while they seem to be within, they are severed from that invisible bond of love. Whence St. John says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for had they been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.' He does not say that they ceased to be of us by going out, but that they went out because they were not of us." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3:19:26)

Not only does this passage say nothing about an ‘invisible church,’ but it only reinforces the earlier statement from Augustine quoted above that heresy and schism cannot exist within the Church of God. The Church, by her very nature as a God-ordained institution, does not have the opportunity to become wholly heretical. Augustine never imputes such an idea to the teaching authority of the true Church. Needless to say, one ends up scratching his head when it comes to trying to decipher what JE is trying to prove, and why he uses such Fathers as Augustine to prove it.

Basil -

JE offers some critique of Stephen Ray’s commentary in his book Upon This Rock as regards how Basil viewed the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Mr. Ray quotes Basil as follows:

"It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him [the bishop of Rome] to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,-suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here" (Upon This Rock [San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 207)

Mr. Ray offers the following commentary regarding this statement of Basil:

"The Eastern churches were in dismal condition due to heresy and schism, caused especially by Arianism. Basil confides in Athanasius that the only way out of the situation, in his estimation, is to appeal to the bishop of Rome. He tells Athanasius that he has appealed to the bishop of Rome to 'act on his own authority in the matter'. Basil must have understood the Roman church to have superior authority and the right to exercise it in the Eastern churches. He knows that if the bishop of Rome speaks, those in contention will have to submit." (pp. 207-208)

JE goes on to give his reasons of why he feels Mr. Ray is mistaken in this matter. JE sees no implications of a juridical authority being given to the Bishop of Rome in these quotes. He summarizes his contention as follows:

But, even worse than Stephen Ray's errors in analyzing what he *did* quote from Basil is what he *didn't* quote. Contrary to what he claims, Basil did *not* view an appeal to the bishop of Rome as the only solution to the problems in the East in the sense Stephen Ray suggests. You could say that it was the only solution in some sense, in the sense of practicality and the exhaustion of other possibilities, for example, but not in the sense of jurisdiction.

I’d like to turn the tables here and submit that what’s even worse than JE’s errors in analyzing what he *did* quote from Stephen Ray and Basil is what he *didn’t* quote. But, before we get into that, we need to pause and ask ourselves a couple of questions: First, how was this appeal to the Bishop of Rome the only solution in “some sense?” JE gives us the senses of “practicality” and the “exhaustion of all other possibilities,” but I don’t see Basil alluding to such in the above quote. JE never explains how this appeal to the Bishop of Rome was only necessary in some sort of limited sense. This reduces his assertion to mere conjecture. Second, if the Bishop of Rome was not viewed as having a jurisdictional authority to decide in this matter, then why, as we shall see, were both sides (orthodox Christians and the Arians) claiming to have letters from the Bishop of Rome vindicating their positions?

Let’s take a deeper look into Basil’s writings to see if we can get a better glimpse as to how he viewed the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

In a Letter to the Bishop of Rome (most likely to Pope Damasus), Basil wrote the following:

“Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honourable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties.... I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us....In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop [Pope] Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well as for soundness of faith as for all virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caeserea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.” (emphasis mine)

(Basil, Letter 70, as quoted in Upon this Rock, pg. 209)

In a footnote, Mr. Ray aptly comments:

..The letter has no official address, though it is obviously addressed to Pope Damasus (r.A.D. 366-384). Again previous practice and ancient custom acknowledge the special place of the Roman bishop. Basil remarks elsewhere that certain men were “carrying about letters from the westerns, handing over the bishopric of Antioch to them (NPNF2, 8:253).” What right had Rome to hand over Eastern Bishoprics to anyone? How could Rome prove its primacy in any stronger terms than to hand the Antiochean bishopric over to someone of its own choosing? Obviously Rome had the right and duty of overseeing such ecclesiastical matters, and Basil recognized this authority.”

Stephen Ray, Upon This Rock, pg. 209)

I think Mr. Ray makes a damaging blow here. If nobody in this period of Church history believed that the Bishop of Rome had the authority he was claiming to have then why did the Eastern Churches submit to the bogus letters, purporting to be from the Pope, that were being promulgated by the heretics? When you have heretics and orthodox alike seeking vindication from the Bishop of Rome then you immediately know that this same bishop held a jurisdictional authority in the eyes of the early Church. I don’t see in the above quote from Basil the understanding postulated by JE that an appeal to the Bishop of Rome was the only possible solution in “some sense.” Basil specifically states that he is “by no means making any novel request.” Basil’s request for the intervention of the Bishop of Rome was not based on the “exhaustion of all other possibilities” but was instead based on actions that were “customary” even before the peculiar circumstances Basil’s time.

What is even more telling are the claims made by Pope Damasus himself. Consider the following:

Likewise it is decreed:... we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]....

(Damasus, The Decree of Damasus, 382 A.D.)

If Basil really believed that there was no “world-wide denomination centered in Rome” then we should expect to hear a litany of objections from him regarding the claims made by Pope Damasus in this document - there are none. Basil shows his belief in these claims when he specifically asks for Pope Damasus to intervene in the aforementioned crisis. Before one rashly assumes that Basil held a view of the Church’s nature and mission that rejects Roman Catholic claims of the authority of the Roman bishop, he needs to answer why Basil and other early Christians begged for the intervention of the Bishop of Rome to solve controversies and why they gave no objections to his claims of primacy in the process.

Athanasius -

The topic of the deposition of Athanasius is the crux upon which the above quotes from Basil revolve. JE gives an excerpt of a letter from Basil to Athanasius to back his assertion that Basil, and the early Church with him, rejected Catholicism’s claim for the jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome. JE quotes Basil as follows:

What would Roman Catholic apologists like Stephen Ray make of the following comments if they had been written to the bishop of Rome rather than the bishop of Alexandria:

"As time moves on, it continually confirms the opinion which I have long held of your holiness; or rather that opinion is strengthened by the daily course of events. Most men are indeed satisfied with observing, each one, what lies especially within his own province; not thus is it with you, but your anxiety for all the Churches is no less than that which you feel for the Church that has been especially entrusted to you by our common Lord; inasmuch as you leave no interval in speaking, exhorting, writing, and despatching emissaries, who from time to time give the best advice in each emergency as it arises. Now, from the sacred ranks of your clergy, you have sent forth the venerable brother Peter, whom I have welcomed with great joy. I have also approved of the good object of his journey, which he manifests in accordance with the commands of your excellency, in effecting reconciliation where he finds opposition, and bringing about union instead of division. With the object of offering some contribution to the action which is being taken in this matter, I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you as alike adviser and commander in the enterprise. I have therefore determined to send to your reverence our brother Dorotheus the deacon, of the Church under the right honourable bishop Meletius, being one who at once is an energetic supporter of the orthodox faith, and is earnestly desirous of seeing the peace of the Churches. The results, I hope, will be, that, following your suggestions (which you are able to make with the less likelihood of failure, both from your age and your experience in affairs, and because you have a greater measure than all others of the aid of the Spirit), he may thus attempt the achievement of our objects....The present state of affairs makes it specially necessary that attention should be called to him [the heretic Marcellus], so that those who seek for their opportunity, may be prevented from getting it, from the fact of sound men being united to your holiness, and all who are lame in the true faith may be openly known; that so we may know who are on our side, and may not struggle, as in a night battle, without being able to distinguish between friends and foes....you will yourself give more complete attention to all these matters, so soon as, by the blessing of God, you find every one entrusting to you the responsibility of securing the peace of the Church." (Letter 69:1-2)

Basil refers to Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, as watching over "all the Churches". He refers to Athanasius as "the head and chief of all" and "commander". He says that Athanasius has "a greater measure than all others of the aid of the Spirit". He refers to Athanasius as a source of unity, with "sound men being united to your holiness". He asks Athanasius to act, so that "all who are lame in the true faith may be openly known; that so we may know who are on our side, and may not struggle, as in a night battle, without being able to distinguish between friends and foes". He tells Athanasius that "you will yourself give more complete attention to all these matters, so soon as, by the blessing of God, you find every one entrusting to you the responsibility of securing the peace of the Church".

These comments of Basil refute Stephen Ray's suggestion that Basil considered a jurisdictional appeal to the bishop of Rome to be the *only* solution to the problems in the East. Not only does Basil say nothing about the bishop of Rome being a Pope, but he even makes comments about the bishop of Alexandria that are higher than what he says about the bishop of Rome. If Basil had made those comments about the bishop of Rome rather than the bishop of Alexandria, Stephen Ray probably would have quoted them in his book. But since Basil was referring to the bishop of Alexandria, Roman Catholic apologists see no papal implications.

The reason Roman Catholic apologists see no ‘papal implications’ in this passage is because there are none. Did Basil make any references to Athanasius being the successor of Peter? Did Basil, who was familiar with Pope Damasus’ decree, also believe that the Church of Alexandria was “placed at the forefront” and had “received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior?” The answers to the questions are, undoubtedly, no. Flowery language from bishop to bishop doesn’t make a Papacy - the promises made to Peter and his successors do. Knowing that Basil wrote to Pope Damasus with full knowledge of the claims that Pope Damasus made for himself testifies to the irrefutable fact that Basil accepted the claims of the Bishop of Rome, and that he, likewise, did not believe that the Church of Alexandria either held or claimed to hold the same primacy as that of Rome. Basil’s silence in the face of Pope Damasus’ claims does not leave room for any other alternative viewpoint.

The Case of Ursacius and Valens

The case of Ursacius and Valens as regards the deposition of Athanasius gives us an interesting glimpse into early Church protocol. Ursacius and Valens were the Bishops of Singidunum (Belgrade) and Mursa, respectively. Both were Arian sympathizers who were instrumental in getting Athanasius booted from his bishopric in Alexandria. Neither of them were known for their consistent orthodoxy, either before or after the incident with Athanasius, but their actions surrounding their condemnation of Athanasius - as well as their subsequent retraction of that condemnation- speaks volumes as to how they, and Athanasius, regarded the authority of the Church, especially the Roman Bishop. After Pope Julius learned of Athanasius’ deposition, he wrote the following in a scathing letter to Arian sympathizers:

“Why was nothing said to us [Pope Julius and the Roman Church] concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place [Rome]; whereas, after neglecting to inform us and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.... Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”

(Pope Julius, as quoted in Athanasius’ Defence Against the Arians, 2, 35)

What was the response of these two bishops? Did they say that the Bishop of Rome was usurping rightful authority? Did they, or Athanasius, argue that the God-Breathed Scripture denies such authority being placed in any man? Consider the following and draw your own conclusion. As regards Pope Julius’ letter, Athanasius wrote:

“When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime, declared themselves penitent, and sought forgiveness, addressing the following letters to Julius, Bishop of ancient Rome, and to ourselves. Copies of them were sent to me from Paulinus, Bishop of Treveri.

“Ursacius and Valens to the most blessed lord, pope Julius.

“Whereas it is well known that we have heretofore in letters laid many grievous charges against the Bishop Athanasius, and whereas, when we were corrected by the letters of your Goodness, we were unable to render an account of the statement we had made; we do now confess before your Goodness....Wherefore we earnestly desire communion with the aforesaid Athanasius, especially since your Piety, with your characteristic generosity, has vouchsafed to pardon our error. But we also declare, that if at any time the Eastern Bishops, or even Athanasius himself, ungenerously should wish to bring us to judgment for this matter, we will not depart contrary to your judgment.... I Ursacius subscribed this my confession in person; and likewise I Valens.

(As quoted in Athanasius’ Defence Against the Arians)

In the face of a condemnation from the Bishop of Rome, these two heretical Bishops did a complete “180” and went so far as to say that not even a judgment from the eastern bishops would cause them to depart from Julius’ judgment. This function of the Church was so well understood that the great orthodox bishop Athanasius bothered to quote it in his Defence. Neither Athanasius, or the bishops mentioned here ever denied the authority of the Pope, or the Church as a whole in communion with him. This shows us that the Church has the authority to make crucial, binding decisions. Such is her nature as the Bride of Christ.

Conclusion

There’s much more that can (and should) be discussed as regards this topic, but it’s been my aim to keep this as general and simple as possible. One can spend his or her entire lifetime studying the massive corpus of writings that came out of the early Church. I hope to move to other topics such Salvation and the Sacraments in later posts. My desire in this segment, a desire I believe also to be shared by Mr. Engwer, is a desire to present you with a general yet thorough treatment of what the writers of the early Church believed to be the nature and role of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Authority of the Church. I’ve meant no disrespect in this rebuttal to Mr. Engwer or anyone who subscribes to his brand of doctrine, and I hope nothing I’ve said will be construed as being arrogant or condescending. Try as we might, those of us who engage in these types of discussions, whether in private or in a public forum such as this, have a tendency to be ‘Prima Donnas.’ I’ve tried my best to avoid that, and I apologize if anything I’ve written has caused undue offense to anyone. Having said that, I still stand by my earlier statements that, in my estimation, Mr. Engwer’s treatment of this topic in his series is woefully inadequate. To make claims that the early Church Fathers contradicted Roman Catholic teachings as regards the nature and role of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the authority of the Church is untenable. In reality, Catholic Dogma as regards these subjects has done nothing more than re-quote what these Fathers unanimously taught about such things, and I firmly believe that an unbiased reading of the Fathers certainly reveals such to be the case. It’s not enough for Mr. Engwer and other Evangelical apologists to re-state the obvious; namely, that an original revelation was given to mankind that must be followed if one is to remain in God’s good graces; that simple fact has never been the argument between us. Mr. Engwer instead needs to show us from the Fathers what vehicle was viewed by the early Church to be the mode of transmission for that revelation, and how it is really the invisible church of Evangelicalism as opposed to a hierarchical, world-wide Church of Catholicism that has held to and transmitted that revelation undefiled since the time of the apostles. I’ve seen no such evidence of this ‘invisible church’ in the writings of the Fathers at all. I also have not seen how a religious movement which cannot agree on such fundamental issues as Baptism, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ and Church government can be the ‘pillar of truth’ against which the gates of hell would never prevail. In fact, I believe there’s a recent book titled, ‘Five views on Church Polity” - where’s that ever sanctioned in the Bible or the early Church?!

I hope this segment has been helpful. It’s certainly not the best that could have (or has been) done on these topics. My hope is that it will at least get all those interested to look a little deeper at the historical roots for the Catholic faith. The job is now up to the reader to examine this evidence and study the Fathers for themselves. I believe such a study leads to an inevitable discovery: It is only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Catholicism that can lay claim to be the sole possessor of the unadulterated truth given to us by our King and Lord.

Patrick D. Morris

January 13, 2005

Where the Church is, there is the most secure resting-place (or harbour) for thy mind.

(Ambrose, To the Church of Vercelli, Epistle 63).