Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Sola Scriptura? Part 2

I've had such a great response from the last post, that I have decided to continue this post as a series! So, instead of giving you one or two little quotes from an Early Church Father, I will give you several so-called sola-scriptura quotes so that we may be able to analyzed them; in this manner if any Protestant ever tells quotes from a specific work from the Patristics, you'll be able to refer back to these posts and see how to properly defend the Catholic faith! This will be the second part of the series and I will post more on the Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura in the future. As for now, let us look at 2 more Early Church Fathers who Protestants claim believed in the Bible Alone.

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after the truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” 

                                                       – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Chapter 16

Yet another widely used quote to demonstrate that the Early Church believed in sola scriptura as far back as the late 2^nd century. Unfortunately this quote undoes the Protestant belief in scripture alone when we read, just a few paragraphs down, the following (my emphasis added):

“And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.”

My humble reader, if St. Clement of Alexandria states that taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT and using them as a weapon in a theological argument is a heresy, well then, I suggest to you that this is THE definition of Bible-alone Protestantism! Far too often do we see Protestants quoting a particular verse or a particular passage when attempting to substantiate a Protestant belief, doctrine or dogma. This crucial and fundamental Protestant tactic is to be, therefore, done away with per St. Clement for – as he stated – IT IS a heresy. Hence, ANY Protestant that attempts to quote a Church Father or a Bible verse by proof-reading the text is wholly committing a heretical act and should be called out on it! BUT, more importantly is what St. Clement says just a couple paragraphs afterwards (my emphasis added):

“…through the propensity to sloth, they push truth away, or through the desire of fame, endeavor to invent novelties. For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scripture from the Scripture themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed Apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the Divine Tradition by human teachings, in order to establish heresy.”

In other words, heretics do two things: they give their own personal meaning to the Scriptures by not using Scripture properly and, they deny the orally inspired words of the Apostles and their disciples, that is, they reject Apostolic Tradition. That’s right, this Early Church Father who pro-sola scriptura Protestants like to quote, decimated the entire notion of Protestantism over 1,350 years before it was ever invented! He clearly and unambiguously stated that taking a verse out of context and rejecting Apostolic Tradition, which is the bread and butter of Protestantism, make any Christian believer a heretic.

Therefore, St. Clement of Alexandria, cannot be quoted in order to prove sola scriptura.

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:

Need more proof that Apostolic Tradition was foundational for St. Clement of Alexandria? Look no further than the very first chapter of Stromata. Towards the middle of the first chapter, Clement is stating whom he learned the faith from and then says the following:

“…they [those who taught  St. Clement] preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the Holy Apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father, came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed Tradition.”

Basically, right from the beginning of Clement’s Stromata, he espouses the authority of Sacred Tradition and its importance in both the Church and the Scriptures!

“But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing…”

                                           – Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 6

“The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent…I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.”

                                            -Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7

“But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense no found throughout the Holy Scriptures!”                         

                                            –Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 20

“We have, however, challenged these opinions to the test, both of the arguments which sustain them, and of the Scriptures which are appealed to, and this we have done ex abundant…”                        

                                             –Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 25

(DISCLAIMER: Tertullian was a hardcore defender of the true faith for most of his life. I say was because, unfortunately, Tertullian fell into heresy later on in his life. He became a member of the heretical Monatist sect which placed some inordinate puritanical practices in lieu of new prophecies as well as false revelations from God. As such, Tertullian isn’t really an “Early Church Father” in the extreme sense of the title, much like Origen he is more of an ecclesiastical writer. However, most of his pre-Monatists works are absolute gems of Early Christianity. Therefore, I will not refer to Tertullian as an Early Church Father per say but, a Church writer instead.)

Protestants who stick to sola scriptura simply love Tertullian. More than any other 3^rd century Church writer and defender, Tertullian definitely used the Holy Scriptures when attacking all forms of heresy. In particular, the quotes above are taken from his work entitled On the Flesh of Christ, or, De Carne Christi. In this work, Tertullian sets out to not only refute several heretics but, he also debunks a lot of their misunderstandings; chief among these heretics is a “Christian” named Marcion.

The Marcionites were heretics for several reasons: to begin with, they believed St. Paul to have been Christ’s head Apostle instead of Peter, they denied the Incarnation, and they believed that there were 2 gods - a good god and a bad god. They reasoned from Scriptures that there was a bad god during the time of the Old Testament and there was another god during the time of the New Testament, that is, during the time of Christ. As such they stated that Christ could not be the Son of the God of the Jews primarily due to the fact that Christianity was the New Covenant and anything that had to do with the Judaism had to be discarded…that included the entirety of the Old Testament!

That’s right, Marcion rejected outright the Old Testament due to its antiquated cruelty and rudimentary practices. Marcion therefore theorized that this Old Testament god was not the Supreme God but a lesser god. The real issue for Marcion then became in how to reconcile the New Testament verses that reference the Old Testament and, much like the grand heretic that he was, Marcion edited out all text that ran contrary to his beliefs. In other words, Marcion created his own personal New Testament; which consisted in having only eleven of Paul’s epistles and one Gospel which he edited, that of St. Luke.

Therefore once we realize who, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING, Tertullian is addressing in these quotes, is it any wonder as to why Tertullian quotes from the Scriptures so much??? Think about it, Tertullian is fighting against a heresy that not only negates the existence of one Creator but, has discarded ALL of the Hebrew Scriptures and has settled with a mutilated version of the New Testament. Is it really that surprising that Tertullian would rely so heavily on the true Scriptures when combating a heretic who mangled Scriptures to fit his personal ideology? Of course not!!! 

These proof-read quotes of Tertullian don’t prove sola scriptura for two reasons: 1) Tertullian NEVER states that Scripture in and of itself is what is needed in order to disprove heretical and conflicting dogma. In other words, he never states that the Scriptures are the only thing to be used to justify a belief or practice and, that brings us to the next reason: 2) Tertullian was a HUGE believer in Apostolic Tradition and the Church as sources of genuine authority. So much so, that he uses Apostolic Oral Tradition as a means of justifying the authentic Scriptures! In chapter 2 of On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian states that Marcion has rejected the Scriptures which were “handed down” and “transmitted” from the Apostles themselves (my emphasis added):

“…I suppose you have had, O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of history) of Christ, that His flesh may lose the proofs of is reality. But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if a follower of apostles, side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us…What you believed to be of a different character, had been handed down just as you [once] believe it. Now that which had been handed down was true, in asmuch as it had been transmitted by those whose duty it was to hand it down. Therefore, when rejecting that which had been handed down, you reject that which was true. You had no authority for what you did.”

The one thing we must remember is that the Apostles DID NOT have a Bible, therefore when they spoke, they spoke God-inspired revelation and, it is precisely this oral transmission that Tertullian says was “handed down” and “transmitted” in a truthful manner via the Apostles. How do we know that this is what Tertullian is saying? Well in Prescription Against Heresies, another anti-Marcionian work of Tertullian, chapter 20 states that unless a church was founded by an Apostle, it is a heretical church and therefore cannot have the truth:

“…they [the Apostles] obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the traditions of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification.”

What Tertullian just said should send shivers up the spines of any Protestant who dares to make the claim that Tertullian was a pro-sola scriptura believer! For unless the Protestant can make a historically accurate claim that their church, doctrines and tradition all stem from the Apostles, as Tertullian claims, they shouldn’t even be calling themselves Christians! Indeed, according to Tertullian, they shouldn’t even be using nor reading the Christian Scriptures!

So how, therefore, can we tell what is and isn’t an Apostolic Church? Well, in chapter 32 of Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian states the #1 thing that makes a church a true church is succession. That’s right, the pivotal Catholic practice of succession is what this Early Church writer stated is the hallmark of Christ’s true church and not a heretical church. In chapter 32 he says:

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men..For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit, whom, as having been appointed to their Episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for it author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man…”

There is only one modern day Church that can trace its heritage back to not only the apostolic era but, to Christ himself and, if you do believe in sola scriptura, then you are not part of that Church. Because obviously, Tertullian didn’t believe that the Bible alone was or is the sole source of authority, he held Tradition and the Church as valid sources of authority – just like the Catholic Church does so today. Tertullian himself believed wholly Catholic ideas; for instance, he believed that the true Christian must be baptized with water, he believed in Holy Orders, the true Christian has to do the sign of the cross, and receives the Sacrament of Confirmation as well as the fact that the true Christian is sanctified through the Eucharist. Proof of each of these things are noted by Tertullian in On the Resurrection of the Flesh chapter 8:

“The flesh is washed in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed with the cross, that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God.”

Sorry Protestants, but that’s what the Catholic Church has always believed in and still, to this day, practices. Hence, Tertullian IS NOT an authoritative claim in favor of sola scriptura.

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:

He is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Latin Christianity” and is also the oldest Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Trinitas) as well as giving the oldest known explanation of the Trinitarian doctrine.  

End of Part 2

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Sola Scriptura? Part 1

Sola Scriptura is the basis for many a Protestant heresy. It explicitly states that the Bible alone contains all knowledge for salvation and holiness, that is, the Bible is the complete and authoritative rule for the Christian. Many, if not most, of all Protestant denominations today strictly adhere to this unbiblical doctrine; indeed, one must definitely find it most curious that the Bible itself NEVER once mentions such a thing nor does it ever point to itself as the sole rule of faith! Therefore, in order to offer validity to this most unbiblical doctrine, Protestant theologians have attempted to demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers - who were without a doubt Catholic - were believers in Sola Scriptura.

Now, why would Protestants want to do such a thing? Well, truth be told, Protestants need to do this because of Protestantism itself! What do I mean by this? Let me explain...

You see, Protestants have a REALLY big issue and that issue is that they don't have the historical evidence to back up their personal belief system. Their pedigree only extends to the founding or, in some cases, invention of their church and their doctrines. As such, when any Protestant denomination attempts to show some form of historicity within their congregation, they can only - at the very most - extend the founding of their church to the mid-1500's when Martin Luther established or, better stated, invented his personal brand of Christianity. Attempting to apply ANY Protestant belief before the 1500's is simply a fool's game. However, that has never stopped some foolhardy Protestants from trying to take their man-made and humanly inspired theological whims and attempting to affix them in the Early [Catholic] Church.

Therefore, it is my main objective in this post to absolutely and categorically demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers WERE NOT adherents to this heretical notion. I will be posting quotes from the Early Fathers from several Protestant websites which have labeled them as proof of Sola Scriptura among the Patristics and then I will show how easy it is to refute any attempts to cast their doctrines upon our Church members.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”    – St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3: Chapter 1, paragraph 1

Uh oh! An Early Church Father proclaiming that the Scriptures are where we get the plan for salvation as well as being the foundation of our faith! And, since the Scriptures say nothing about needing Sacraments in order to be saved, the Catholic Church’s Sacramental system is not needed! Well, unfortunately for an anti-Catholic Protestant, there are at least two things that we need to take a look at when analyzing these so-called sola scriptura Early Church Father quotes; first we need to see the quote IN CONTEXT. Protestants are notorious at taking verses out of context in order to make a point, therefore I would suggest to you that the very first thing we must look at is the CONTEXT of the quote. Secondly, we must see if there is any contradiction with established Scripture and the text; often times, Protestants who have little to no knowledge of Christian history are quick to accept a teaching offered by an Early Church Father that parallels their personal ideology but, rarely do Protestants go beyond a quote and a verse - and in doing so, they misinterpret what the Early Church Father said.

St. Irenaeus wrote the third book of Against Heresies in the late 2^nd Century, it therefore should automatically behoove us to know what the first 2 books were about and how it is that they tie into the third. If one were to read the first book of Against Heresies, one would realize that St. Irenaeus sets out to debunk Gnosticism and, in the first book, he tends to illustrate the absurdity of Gnosticim by briefly remarking on how Gnosticism makes no practical sense and then demonstrating how only true Christianity confirms the truth that they oppose. In the Second book, Irenaeus goes back and instead of giving brief retorts to Gnostic heresies, he goes into great depth at fully discrediting them, this all leads up to the third book which begins by delving into doctrine more directly.

As you can see, there is a method to St. Irenaeus’ madness as he starts off with simple retorts in order to set up a much larger blitz against Gnosticism. This is the mindset that we MUST have in order to fully understand St. Irenaeus as he begins his third book. This first paragraph is entitled:

“The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.”

Easily seen is that St. Irenaeus is going to talk about how, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles were able to preach the Gospel. This has NOTHING to do Sola Scriptura and everything to do with demonstrating to the Gnostics that there is only one God! In other words, the quote from up top that Protestants use to demonstrate sola scriptura - when taken IN CONTEXT - is NOT being used to prove sola scriptura! Additionally, any Protestant that dares to misquote St. Irenaeus here is unwittingly legitimizing the Catholic doctrine of Oral Tradition! Because, after all, it was through the oral preaching of the Apostles and their disciples that the early Church was able to understand who Jesus was and how He came to offer mankind salvation as well as how he was to be worshipped.

Without going too much into it, the Catholic Church has always maintained that the Magisterium (“office of the teachers”) was started by the 11 Apostles when Christ commissioned them to go and preach and baptize in Matthew 28:16-20. When Christ Ascended into heaven, he left the Apostles the power to teach with authority but, more importantly, they could not err since they would always have Jesus with them, “until the end of time.” Hence, when the Apostles taught and spoke on matters of faith they were preserved from ever teaching something wrong because God Himself was there with them. We also see this again in John 14:26, when Jesus promises His Apostles that they will remember all that He has taught them through the power of the Holy Spirit.

This Magisterial body of the Apostles had the authority to determine what was right and what was heretical by virtue of being established by Christ Himself and, this same body of Christ’s disciples, continues to this day within the confines of the Catholic Church – the only Christian church that can date itself to the time of Christ and, the only Christian church that can undoubtedly state that it was founded by St. Peter, the Head Apostle. As Catholics, we see the Magisterium, not only as one of our 3 sources of authority but, as a conduit for the living word of God to flow from; this teaching is wholly absent in Protestantism since no non-Catholic denomination can claim such a thing, as such we as Catholics see the teaching of the Magisterium as unerring since it is in fact inspired by God…in the same way that the Bible is.

And, it is this very thing that St. Irenaeus is attempting to demonstrate! As stated earlier, the third book of his Against Heresies goes into Church doctrine and, as we take a closer look at what the first paragraph states, we see that Irenaeus is attempting to make evident that only the authority of the Apostles – as it was given to them by Christ and is handed down via succession – is a doctrine of Christ’s true church! Let’s read a little bit more of St. Irenaeus’ commentary and see just how the Protestant tends to neuter his words for their benefit:

“…For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say… For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men...”

Here Irenaeus is stating that the deposit of faith given to the Apostles was perfect because the Holy Spirit imparted to them all the adequate knowledge that they needed. He then goes on to say that the true written Gospels come only from the 4 Evangelists:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect…Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Now, I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say: “See! There’s proof right there that Irenaeus used Scripture in order to prove his point! So Scripture is indeed the end-all for the true Christian!” Well, if in fact you hold to this opinion, then let us continue to the 2^nd chapter of Book 3 and see what St. Irenaeus says about Scripture; like I said before, ALL of this must be read in CONTEXT and not piecemeal. In the continuing chapter, we see that Irenaeus decided to entitle it:

“The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition”

Whoa! St. Irenaeus wouldn’t be equating tradition with Scripture now, would he? Well, in the 2^nd paragraph of Chapter 2 we read the following:

“…when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition…”

Uh oh. There’s that distinctly Catholic word, “succession” and even more Catholic, it speaks about succession of priests in the Church as they hold on to tradition. Here it is unambiguously stated that tradition, which the Gnostics (and to a greater extent modern-day Protestants) reject, is needed in order to justify the authority of the Scriptures and, it is precisely this tradition which dictates what is and is not bone fided Holy Writ. This is very important for 2 reasons: one, it demonstrates that the Scriptures came from tradition, that is, oral Tradition validated the written Word and not vice-versa. Two, it shows that in the Early Church, no set of Scriptures were needed due to the fact that the Apostles and their successors had the unerring ability to preach orally inspired messages when they spoke and, it was this unerring oral message that eventually was written down and formed Holy Writ.

In the continuing chapter, chapter 3 of Book 3, St. Irenaeus pulls no punches in stating that succession from the Apostles is of the utmost importance. He states:

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times… [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

St. Irenaeus then goes on to mention the 3 Popes who came after St. Peter:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…”

That’s right, the man named Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 would eventually become the second leader of the Catholic Church, i.e., the Pope. And the man mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3, Clement, would become the 4th Pope to lead the Catholic Church! In other words, 3 of the first 4 men who would become the Bishop of Rome are mentioned in Scripture! Now, why am I stressing this so much? Well, plainly stated, if in fact one wants to equate sola scriptura to St. Ireneaus based on the aforementioned quote then why not also accept the fact that St. Ireneaus strictly observed and defended the succession of Popes who led the Church that he belonged to?

Indeed, to accept Ireneaus as an authority for the validity of sola scriptura is to accept Irenaeus as an authority for the Catholic doctrine of tradition and succession of Popes. To not accept both and merely the former is to dishonestly attempt to prove that St. Irenaeus believed in the Bible alone and not the tenements of Catholicism!

Lastly, we must also point out that – if a Protestant wants to take St. Ireneaus’ quote as vindication for using Scripture alone, they themselves are actually going against what the Bible teaches. In the last line of St. Irenaeus’ quote, he says that Scripture was “handed down to us” and that the Scriptures are to be “the ground and pillar of our faith.” The pro-sola scriptura Protestant will immediately pounce on this notion however, what St. Irenaeus has just stated is at odds with what Scripture itself states. 1 Timothy 3:15 states:

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

So now we have a contradiction. On the one hand, sola scriptura believers will say that Irenaeus is proof that the Early Church recognized Scripture as being the “ground and pillar” of the Christian faith. But, on the other hand, Scripture explicitly dictates that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” So, which is it? A man states that Scripture is the basis and yet Scripture commends the truth to the Church! The only way to reconcile these is to accept the fact that St. Irenaeus did this on purpose in order to equate the Church, which was founded upon Peter and lives through the succession of leaders, with the Scriptures which were born from the Apostolic Traditions. Basically, the only way to square this apparent contradiction is to accept the Catholic position!

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:
If any Protestant wants to use this quote by St. Ireneaus, remember the Catholic teaching of orally inspired teaching because, after all, Irenaeus explicitly says that the Gospels was "at one time" proclaimed in public BEFORE it was written down! This gives firm proof that oral teaching was a basis for determining what was and was not inspired Scripture.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. – St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4, paragraph 17

This is one of the often used verses from St. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures that Protestants use to showcase an Early Church Father as being a Bible only believing Christian. Cyril’s 4^th Lecture is specifically geared toward addressing 10 different points of doctrine and, it is while talking upon the aspects of the Holy Spirit that St. Cyril makes the statement which sounds distinctly pro-sola scriptura. In CONTEXT, it is obvious that Cyril holds that Scripture is Holy Writ due to the fact that it came from the Prophets via the Holy Spirit. However, it is when we ask ourselves, “what are the Scriptures that Cyril speaks of?” that the Protestant desire of a sola scriptura Early Church Father comes crashing down.

One need only continue on to the 33 paragraph of Cyril’s 4^th Catechetical Lecture to see that St. Cyril addresses the Divine Scriptures. In paragraph 33, we also find another Protestant favorite line, see if you can spot it. In paragraph 33 we read:

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed?...”

This would be a dagger to any Catholic! Here we have an Early Church Father stating that we are to read the Bible and not the apocryphal (deuterocanonicals) books that we Catholics have in our Bibles! But, fret not my dear reader for what Cyril says next is even more shocking (my emphasis added):

“Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the 72 interpreters...of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings…strive to remember them by name as I recite them. For the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth book…the first and second Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second Esdras are counted as one. Esther is the twelfth book…Job and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book…Isaiah…Jeremiah…including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.”

And now the Protestant proponent of St. Cyril as being a sola scriptura believer has a dilemma: If the Protestant Bible contains 39 books in the Old Testament how is it that St. Cyril, the ancient authority that is being used to demonstrate sola scriptura, only mentioned that there are ONLY 22 books? What happened to the other 17 books found in the Protestant bibles? Additionally, if a Protestant wants to make the charge that St. Cyril said we shouldn’t read the apocryphal books, then why did he mention the Book of Baruch in his list of Old Testament books? Go ahead, ask any Protestant to turn to the Baruch and they’ll never be able to find it, why? Because this is one of the 7 apocryphal books that Martin Luther discarded when he compiled his abridged bible; the very same abridged bible used by Protestants today! Plus, St. Cyril never mentions the Book of Revelation in his list of New Testament books in paragraph 36 of Lecture 4!

So, it is quite clear then that there is a contradiction here: on the one hand, Protestants claim that St. Cyril was a sola scriptura adherent. But, on the other hand, the Old Testament list of books that St. Cyril describes is missing over 40% of the current books found in the Old Testament and one book out of the New Testament! So, how can we resolve this set of differences? Again, the only solution is the Catholic solution. In order to bring harmony to this dispute we must accept the fact that the Bible, as it is in its current form, had not yet been fully compiled nor canonized. It would be almost another 90 years from the time of St. Cyril that Scripture would be officially canonized at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. by Pope Damasus I.

Therefore, the list of Scriptures that Cyril had was, for all intents and purposes, a working canon at the time and, there is no doubt that, had Cyril lived after the canonization of Scripture, he too would’ve accepted ALL of the 73 books of the Bible as it was put forward by the authority of the Catholic Church.

St. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures are some of the most cited of all the Early Church Father’s for attempted proof of the doctrine of sola scriptura. In Lecture 5.12, the sola scriptura dogmatist will state that Cyril mentions how the faith came to be fully known via the Church and from the Scriptures. However, what most don’t realize is that St. Cyril, in the same paragraph goes on to describe the Nicene Creed - a distinctly Catholic Creedo - and how important it as a part of our faith! We see St. Cyril continue to defend the Nicene Creed and it’s Scriptural origin again in Lecture 13.8-9 (proves that Scripture backs up orally inspired tradition), as well as Lecture 15.13 (proves that the Church played a crucial role in authoritative interpretation) and, in Lecture 16.2 (which proves the existence of the Holy Spirit). If nothing else, this lends justification to the Catholic use of the Nicene Creed in all of our Masses as well as the wholly Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

In Lecture 12.5, many a sola scriptura upholder will note at how St. Cyril says that one should not believe the testimony of man unless it came from the Scriptures. However, this Lecture is dedicated to the Incarnation of Christ and, IN CONTEXT, St. Cyril is stating that if one does not believe in the Virgin birth, that they should check and see the prophesies of the Old Testament; IN CONTEXT, this has nothing to do with the bible being the sole authority for all things Christian and has everything to do with how the Christ was to be born of a virgin.

The one thing that must be remembered in all of the various Lectures of Cyril is that he NEVER states the supremacy or superiority of Scripture over the Church and Tradition. 

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:
If any non-Catholic Christian wants to attempt to use St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an authoritative figure who believed in sola scriptura, ask them what do they think about St. Cyril's 23rd Lecture, entitled "On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion." In this fairly short Lecture written in the late 300's, Cyril clearly demonstrates that the Church had a liturgy which parallels the Catholic Mass! Indeed, IT IS THE MASS! Or, ask them to read St. Cyril's 22nd Lecture in which he undeniably states that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist!

End of Part 1

Sorry for the long hiatus!

Sorry for the lack of new post over the last couple of weeks but, between having a pregnant wife, having surgery and, preparing for my Confirmation class's actual confirmation, I've been to busy to share my thoughts and feelings on all of the stuff that has been going on within the faith.

I will try to get some posts that I've been working on up and running by the end of the week if not by early next week.

The Good Thief and Catholic Teaching

Every good Christian has heard the biblical account of the Good Thief, the bandit who, along with a cohort, were both crucified with Christ, and every good Protestant will quickly use the story of the Good Thief in order to demonstrate holes in Catholic theology and dogma. The Protestant will usually start out by asking a Catholic the following question:

Protestant: "Is it true that you Catholics believe that baptism saves you?"
Catholic: "Yes, we do believe it does."
Protestant: "Don't you Catholics also believe that your works can get you into heaven?"
Catholic: "While works do help, it is God's Grace that merits the eternal reward."
Protestant: "Then how is it that the thief that was crucified along with Christ was, according to Luke 23:42-43, going to be in Paradise with Jesus if he never was baptized nor did he do any good works as a thief?"

Here we see an attack at two basic dogmas of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Baptism is called into question as well as the concept of Justification, that is, how are we justified as righteous and holy enough to truly be called the sons and daughters of God? While the subject of Justification deserves its own post, and I WON'T be going in to that in this post, the bigger subject is the following: How can a Catholic respond to this accusation?

The reason why I bring this topic up is because yesterday was the feast day of Saint Dismas, b.k.a., "The Good Thief." While his name is never stated in the bible, the apocryphal 4th century work entitled The Gospel of Nicodemus, states in the 10th chapter that the name of the penitent thief was "Dysmas" and the non-penitent malefactor was named "Gestas." What is mentioned in Scripture, however, is what we will be looking at.

In Luke 23:39-43 we read the following:

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man had done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." The replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Hanging there on the cross, he finally saw himself as a sinner, so he was able to admonish the other thief as an evildoer. He also saw that, as a sinner, he needed healing so he confessed his sin and - with his heart stirring toward righteousness - he bore witness to the false conviction of an innocent man, that being, Jesus. And lastly, he realized who really was next to him, that right there in his agony stood none other than God Himself.

This closer examination reveals that the Good Thief did 3 things, that is, he did 3 works:

#1: The Good Thief rebuked a sinner, namely the other thief.
#2: The Good Thief gave a confession.
#3: The Good Thief acknowledged Christ as the Messiah.

What we need to realize is that, much like St. Peter, it wasn't his human heart that realized the truth of Christ but it was through the work of God the Father. Essentially, it was the Grace of God that first provoked the Good Thief as he anguished and united his cross with that of Jesus. Filled with this grace, as well as a new faith in God, he was awakened; this all led the Good Thief, Dismas, to put his new found faith into action and into works.

This is an excellent example of the much larger Catholic teaching on Justification which essentially states that God freely gives you Grace, which in turn leads you to have faith and, after you have faith in the one and only God, it is up to you to put that faith into action. After all, can a person who is filled with the grace of God and  has faith in Him simply lock themselves up in a room and expect to be a good Christian? Or, is a person who has been blessed by His grace and has fervent fealty to Him supposed to go out and evangelize and proclaim His message? It is only in this Catholic understanding that James 2:14-17 can make any sense.

As for the Good Thief not being baptized, CCC# 1259-1260 state explicitly the Catholic belief in a Baptism of Desire, therefore, had the Good Thief of had the opportunity to have been baptized, it is almost certain that he would have.

Lastly, as a personal thought, I would like to state my personal opinion about the Good Thief. For me, it means that it is never too late to come to know who God is and what he wants you to do for him in your life. For Dismas, this meant the he would be the archetype for such a belief but, for us, it can mean much more. And indeed it does mean much more, for unlike the Good Thief, we already know who Jesus is and what he did and to not take that gift of knowledge and put it to use in our own lives is truly wasteful and insulting to God.

To think, if we only had half of the faith that the Good Thief had as he hung next to Christ...what miracles we could achieve! Saint Dismas, pray for us!

Let us all pray for our new Pope:

V. Let us pray for Francis, our Pope.

R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. (Ps 40:3)

Our Father, Hail Mary

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis I, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.