Nope – the Fathers had one, called scripture; they referred to it as the canon, the guide, the umpire.
We have the traditions delivered to and from the Apostles – the New Testament. “Follow the traditions” is not an open-ended invitation to add to a body of doctrines, it is an admonition to stick with what was set down in the beginning.
Exactly – Athanasius says the matter was settled by the scriptures.
Your reply actually concedes my main point: the same adjective, αἰώνιος, qualifies both punishment and life in Matthew 25:46. Once that is granted, the burden is on you to show why the term should exclude final, unending blessedness in the one clause but not in the other.
And more importantly, even if we grant for the sake of argument that αἰώνιος here carries the sense of “pertaining to the age to come,” that still doesn’t yield your conclusion. It would mean that both the punishment and the life belong to the eschatological age. It does not by itself mean “temporary” or “lasting only as long as suitable.” That limitation isn’t something I am importing into the text; it is something you are importing into the word.
So the real issue is not whether αἰώνιος can have qualitative or eschatological force, the issue is whether that somehow proves a limited punishment in Matthew 25:46, and it doesn’t.
In this passage the setting is the final judgment, the righteous inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their destiny is called ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Elsewhere in the New Testament, “eternal life” is not merely a temporary condition: Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:28). So yes, αἰώνιος may be richer than a bare time-word, but no, that doesn’t make it finitely durative here.
You’ve now shifted from a lexical claim to a theological one.
At first the claim was that αἰώνιος itself doesn’t mean “eternal.” But now you concede that the same adjective qualifies both punishment and life in Matthew 25:46, and then say that its duration differs according to the “theme” of the noun. At that point, however, the asymmetry is no longer coming from αἰώνιος. It is being imported from your prior theory that punishment lasts only as long as is suitable, whereas life naturally endures without end.
That is exactly the problem. If αἰώνιος has the same value in both clauses, then it can’t itself be doing the work of making one destiny finite and the other endless. That difference has to come from somewhere else. So this is no longer a lexical argument at all.
And the context doesn’t supply what you need. Matthew 25 is the final judgment scene: the righteous inherit the kingdom prepared for them, and the wicked depart into κόλασιν αἰώνιον while the righteous enter ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Nothing in the passage says that the punishment is remedial or lasts only until it has achieved a proportionate result.
Yes, there were some patristic universalists. No, that does not make universalism the dominant patristic view. And annihilationism is even harder to establish as a patristic current of comparable weight; the evidence there is sparse and often disputed. The overall pattern of the Fathers, especially where they speak clearly, runs overwhelmingly toward a final twofold outcome, and in the vast majority of cases toward everlasting punishment rather than extinction.
“Dr. McClymond draws on the most widely respected studies on the Patristic teaching on eschatology, and especially on Fr. Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church to answer this question. Based on a tabulation of data provided by Fr. Daley, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, McClymond concludes from his study the first eight centuries that 68 of the authors clearly teach a two-fold outcome to human lives, heaven and hell, seven authors are unclear, two teach something like eschatological pantheism, and four authors appear to be universalists in an Origenian sense. This is an important fact as often the impression is given that a wider number of fathers embraced universalism or in some way the Orthodox Church does.”
Annihilationism specifically: I don’t recall any father teaching that doctrine except Arnobius, so that speaks for itself.
What the later Councils (starting from Constantinople II) condemned simply aligned with what the vast majority of the Church Fathers taught.
No, St.Roymond, that isn’t how the Fathers describe doctrinal authority, and it isn’t how Nicaea operated. The Fathers certainly treat Scripture as inspired, normative, and decisive, but not as a free-standing umpire detached from apostolic tradition ( the rule of faith), baptismal confession, and the public teaching of the Church.
Once rival parties appeal to Scripture, the Fathers don’t say that private exegesis is enough; they appeal to the Church’s received faith as the context in which Scripture is rightly read.
But since you made such an unequivocal statement, namely “ the Fathers had one, called scripture; they referred to it as the canon, the guide, the umpire”, let us see whether it stands up in light of what the Church Fathers actually said.
Let us set opinions aside and examine the facts.
Iraeneus is one of the clearest witnesses. In Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 26.5) CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.26 (St. Irenaeus) he says: “Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets. “
Then in Against Heresies Book III chapter 4 CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus) Irenaeus says: “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 themselves 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?”
That’s as far from Sola Scriptura as it gets: it’s Scripture read within apostolic tradition preserved in the churches.
Tertullian says the same thing in a different key. In Prescription against Heretics 19 CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian) he explicitly says “Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians? For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scripture and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions”. His point is not that Scripture is false or secondary, but that Scripture doesn’t function as a self-interpreting court above the Church. The Church’s regula fidei is the public key to Scripture against heretical misuse.
Basil is even more explicit against the idea that apostolic tradition simply equals the New Testament text. In De Spiritu Sancto 9.22 CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil) he distinguishes what is drawn “from Holy Scripture” from what is received from the “unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” He says: “Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” That distinction alone is enough to refute the claim that the Fathers identified all binding apostolic tradition with the written New Testament and nothing more.
The Nicene evidence makes the same point in the anti-Arian controversy. Eusebius of Caesarea, explaining Nicaea afterward, says https://www.fourthcentury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Eusebius-Letter-about-Nicaea-3.pdf that the creed he presented was what he had received “from the bishops who preceded us,” in his first catechesis, at baptism, and from the divine Scriptures. He also says the meaning of homoousios was examined by “intense questioning and explaining.” So the council didn’t proceed by bare proof-texting. It judged the Arian reading of Scripture against the Church’s inherited baptismal and doctrinal faith, and then used a non-biblical term to secure the right sense.
J. N. D. Kelly’s classic synthesis says much the same. In his discussion of Irenaeus and Tertullian, he explains that Tertullian didn’t confine apostolic tradition to the New Testament, that the regula fidei functioned as the guide to correct exegesis in the Church, and that Scripture and tradition were not treated as rival sources but as coincident in content and publicly preserved in the Church’s witness. That isn’t “Scripture alone” by any stretch ot the imagination.
I’m going to quote some of his verbatim words in some paragraphs (not everything otherwise it would be too long, they are selected paragraphs ) from here Full text of "103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines.pdf (PDFy mirror)"
CHAPTER II
TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE
So the patristical and historical answer is straightforward: the early Church didn’t function by sola scriptura, and Nicaea didn’t defeat Arius by naked proof-texting: the Fathers appealed constantly to Scripture, but they did so within apostolic tradition, the rule of faith, baptismal confession, succession, and conciliar judgment. Tradition was not a second revelation above Scripture; it was the Church’s public, inherited norm for identifying the right reading of Scripture.
P.s: in Kelly’s work at a certain point we can read the words “okottos iKKXijataaTtKos”. That’s almost certainly a corrupt OCR from the greek σκοπός ἐκκλησιαστικός (skopos ekklēsiastikos), namely the ecclesiastical scope. I’m referring to the part where Kelly writes the following: “Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize 3 the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he
flung the charge* that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the okottos
iKKXijataaTtKos, meaning by that the Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. “
In that context, as I said, it’s almost certainly a corrupt OCR from σκοπός ἐκκλησιαστικός.
Also I just want to add what some other historians have to say about the roles of Scripture and Tradition in the early Church.
Everett Ferguson, Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation, page 83/84 of this https://fbcclassroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/EverettFerguson-Church-History-Vol.-1.pdf pdf
“The correct teaching passed down in the churches by their bishops and presbyters was summarized for Irenaeus by the “rule of faith, or— in his wording—the “canon of truth. For Irenaeus, the canon of truth represented the plot of Scripture, the unfolding of which was the arrangements or dispensations in God’s saving plan. Earlier investigators of the history of the development of creeds often obscured matters by confusing the rule of faith with the creed. The content of the two is related, but they had different functions that account for the variety of wording employed in reference to the rules of faith and the comparative fixity of wording in the Apostles’ Creed. The rule of faith was a summary of the apostolic message and expressed the legitimate content of Scripture, not a separate body of doctrine. “
Also from the same pdf at the pages 95/96
“Irenaeus’s argument from apostolic succession for the validity of the church’s teachings, and his appeal to the canon of truth as the proper standard for the interpretation of Scripture, were lasting contributions to the catholic understanding of the ministry of the church and tradition.“The Word of God became man; he who is Son of God was made Son of Man in order that humanity, by being taken into the Word and receiving adoption, might become the child of God” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.19.1). Significant for the future, and controversial in its meaning, was the place Irenaeus gave to the Roman church. The crucial passage (preserved only in Latin) literally reads as follows,“For with [or to] this church [Rome] on account of the more potent principality it is necessary that every church should agree [or come together, resort], that is those who from every place are faithful, in which [church] there is always preserved by these who are from every place the tradition which is from the apostles” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). Almost every key word is controverted, but it seems that Irenaeus is presenting the Roman church as a mirror of the universal church; representatives from churches all over the empire came to Rome as the capital city, and so there was found in the Roman church witness to the common apostolic tradition Iraeneus is important for representing the orthodox reaction to the problems of heresy in the second century. His approach articulated the premises on which the old catholic church developed. He stressed the fundamental Christian doctrines: one God, goodness of creation, redemption through the one Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the body, the historical roots of the Christian faith, and the authority of Scripture rightly interpreted. He was typical of the old catholic church in anticipating doctrines that were to assume greater importance in the future: the apostolic succession of bishops, the rule of faith [apostolic tradition] as the standard for interpreting the Bible, the appeal to the material elements of the eucharist as embodying spiritual realities, and a place for Mary (the new Eve) in his theology of recapitulation. Iraeneus was thus both a “biblical” theologian and a “catholic” theologian. “
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, page 56 of this https://www.maarifado.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Lewis-Ayres-Nicaea-and-Its-Legacy_-An-Approach-to-Fourth-Century-Trinitarian-Theology-Oxford-University-Press-USA-2004-1.pdf pdf (note: with I write page of the pdf it is not to be confused with a page of the actual book, as sometimes the two are not coincident): “Thus, at this point in the divinely governed drama of redemption Christians explore and debate the transformation that constitutes Christian life by attention to the scriptural text. Christians summarized the narrative and σκοπόζ of the text in the “rule of faith”, or in the creed that formed early Christian catechesis, and this received faith was the assumed context for one’s reading of Scripture. Of course, these expressions of faith were frequently unclear on some central points of debate during the fourth century, and different local traditions favoured different interpretations . Nevertheless, in all contexts the perceived traditional faith was the guide for interpretation.”
Tomas Bokedal, The Early Rule-of-Faith Pattern as Emergent Biblical Theology, pages 1/2 of this https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/c8b3c1d7-e383-4d66-86a1-b8dccd23ded9/content pdf: “Due to their defining qualities, Scripture and Rule of Faith emerged within the faith community – to use the German theologian Karlmann Beyschlag’s phrasing – as ”two sides of one and the same norm” (zwei Seiten einer Norm). The Early Rule-of-Faith Pattern as Emergent Biblical Theology such, the regula fidei could even be seen as a property of sacred Scripture, emphasizing the arrangement of the Old and New Testament texts into a whole, with special attention given to reading biblical passages in their intra-scriptural context. Alternatively, when associated more with baptismal confession or apostolic tradition in the broader sense, the regula could be viewed as a scripturally de fined or aligned Rule. Applied to various types of scriptural exegesis, this Rule of Faith, or Rule-of-Faith pattern of biblical reading, occurs around AD 200 in Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage and Clement of Alexandria, as well as in other early Christian writers.”
And now from the pages 2/3 of the same pdf: The regula fidei attained a multivalent function during the period we are looking at, and could be equated with Scripture, baptismal confession, or apostolic tradition more broadly. Thus, the tension posed between Scripture and unwritten Christian tradition in the Western churches since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation does not appear in the early Christian centuries, neither in the New Testament, during the New Testament period, nor subsequently. In 1 Clement, an epistle addressed to the Corinthian Christians towards the end of the first century, the author appeals to the church in Corinth to ”conform to the renowned and holy rule of our tradition” (1 Clem. 7.2; τῆς παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα). As the equally renowned second-century regula fidei tradition became part of central Christian vocabulady as testified by Dionysius of Corinth (ca. AD 170), Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, we shall seek to understand their precise intent concerning this novel expression.“
And now from the pages 5/6 of the same pdf
“The close link between Scripture and regula can be seen in Irenaeus’ critique of the Gnostic Valentinian reading of individual Bible passages, which were taken out of their original literary framework (Against Heresies I, 9.4). The bishop of Lyons complains, describing their exegetical method in rather derogatory terms: “After having entirely fabricated their own system, they [the Valentinians] gather together sayings and names from scattered places and transfer them, as we have already said, from their natural meaning to an unnatural one. They act like tho se who would propose themes which they chance upon and then try to put them to verse from Homeric poems, so that the inexperienced think that Homer composed the poems with that theme, which in reality are of recent composition. … In the same way, anyone who keeps unswervingly in him self the Rule of Truth received through baptism will recognize the names and sayings and parables from the Scriptures, but this blasphemous theme of theirs he will not recognize. For even if he recognizes the jewels, he will not accept the fox for the image of the king. He will restore each one of the passages to its proper order and, having fit it into the body of the Truth, he will lay bare their fabrication and show that it is without support. (Haer. I, 9.4)51 Iraeneus’ way of countering Valentinian text interpretation, as he presents it here, is by appeal to the Rule of Truth (regula veritatis). A correct reading of the Scriptures, he insists, must be pursued according to the regula veritatis pattern: ”Anyone who keeps unswervingly (ἀκλινής) in himself the Rule of Truth received through baptism (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος) will recognize the names and sayings and parables from the Scriptures.” (Haer. I, 9.4; cf. Epid. 3) Baptism, Rule of Truth and Bible reading are here closely linked. True appropriation of Scripture – including an understanding of its names, sayings and parables – takes place in those who adhere to the Rule of Truth. Such is in contradistinction to Gnostic Valentinians and others who have abandoned the Christian regula– or ”Truth itself” (Haer. II, 28.1)52– and the pattern of scriptural reading closely associated with it.”
And now let’s go back again to Kelly and his book “early Christian doctrines” at page 40 https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines_djvu.txt , this time Kelly was writing about Tertullian.
“Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced that |
Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only
where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. The heretics, he complained,’ were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula. “
Then at page 41
“He was certainly profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field. He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape. But these ideas, expounded in his De praescriptiome, were not intended to imply that Scripture was in any way subordinate in authority or insufficient in content. His major premiss remained that of Irenaeus, viz. that the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness.”
Already done: an age lasts as long as is suitable to the kind of age it is.
It does have the same value: what is suitable to the nature of the age. Stop trying to make it a calendar issue.
In other words, they violated the definition of catholic as “always and everywhere”.
I somehow doubt that the Apostles held votes on doctrinal issues, which is what you’re upholding.
By your definition of the matter, Constantinople II was not a catholic council.
“Always and everywhere” plainly doesn’t mean that there were never heretics (whether in good faith or not) who rejected doctrines only later defined with precision by the Church. In the case of those Fathers who held erroneous views, we may safely conclude that they did so in good faith. Furthermore, I have already adduced historical evidence to show that the Fathers didn’t read Scripture according to the principle of sola scriptura. Not to mention that “always and everywhere” refers to what was believed by the whole Church, or at the very least by its overwhelming majority.
It was. As I’ve shown, the fathers believed that the final and binding interpretation belonged to the Chuch; namely they accepted that some of their own teachings could have been erroneous (just like Origen’s apokatastasis, and Origen was a firm defendant of the rule of faith, but Apokatastis, although certainly not mainstream, hadn’t been condemned yet while he was alive). They certainly didn’t think free exam and sola Scriptura to be thing, to begin with. They didn’t view their own teaching as the final authority.
Again from the book “early Christian doctrines” (one of the many books and authors I have cited , besides the Fathers, and it took me a very, very long time and long hours of work to gather them all), at page 40: ““Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. The heretics, he complained,’ were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula.”
And 41: ““He was certainly profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field. But these ideas, expounded in his De praescriptiome, were not intended to imply that Scripture was in any way subordinate in authority or insufficient in content. His major premiss remained that of Irenaeus, viz. that the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness.”
I don’t think that it could be any clearer than this.
And if that is your definition of violation of the principle “always and everywhere”, then even Nicaea would fall.
Justin Martyre, dialogue with Tripho, 56 CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 55-68 (Justin Martyr) : “Justin: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures , [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them.
Theophilus of Antioch, in Ad Autolycum II, 22 NEW ADVENT: Home “But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, John 1:1 showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. “
Obviously Nicaea didn’t condemn Theophilus and Justin as persons, since they are pre-Nicene authors; rather, some of their formulations, when read in light of the dogmatic standard established by Nicaea, turn out to be incompatible with Nicene faith.
The Nicene standard is this: the Son is “begotten from the Father… true God from true God… begotten, not made… of one substance with the Father.” And the council anathematizes those who say: “There was when He was not,” “Before being begotten He was not,” or that the Son is created.
As I’ve shown, in Ad Autolycum II, 22, Theophilus says that the Logos exists within God and then adds that, when God decided to create, He begot and uttered this Word, the first-born of all creation. Therefore, the problem in relation to Nicaea is not that Theophilus denies every kind of pre-existence of the Logos; as a matter of fact, he doesn’t deny it, the problem is that, if the Son as a distinct reality is “begotten” or “uttered” when God decides to create, then the distinct sonship of the Son is linked to the act of creation. In other words, this means that God eternally has the Word and Wisdom within Himself, but generates them for the purpose of creation. In light of Nicaea, this becomes erroneous if it means that the Son, as a distinct subject, is not eternally Son, because Nicaea explicitly rejects the claim: “Before being begotten He was not.”
Put sharply: Theophilus’ Nicene error wouldn’t consist in saying that the Logos was totally absent before creation, for he doesn’t say that, but in conceiving the Son as brought forth for creation, rather than as eternally begotten from the Father.
As for Justin Martyre in Dialogue with Trypho 56, as noted, Justin speaks of Christ as “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things,” and says that He is distinct from the Father “numerically… not in will.” Even in this case we have the problem that in Justin the “generation” of the Logos doesn’t indicate His ultimate origin within the being of God, but rather His putting-forth or emission for the purposes of creation and revelation, conditioned by the Father’s will. Not to mention that he speaks of the Logos as “another God”. Here, in relation to Nicaea, the problem is not the distinction between Father and Son as such (Nicaea presupposes that distinction) but the fact that this distinction is expressed in terms that suggest an ontological secondariness: a God who is “other,” subordinate, and secondary in relation to the Father. That clashes with the Nicene confession of the Son as “true God from true God” and “of one substance with the Father.”
The point toward which my argument tends is, in fact, quite straightforward: if weight is to be placed on the fact that a very small minority of the Fathers espoused erroneous views concerning the punishment of the damned (together with demons, since apokatastasis implied the eventual restoration of the fallen angels as well), then the existence of Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch would, by the same logic invoked against my appeal to the Second Council of Constantinople against both annihiliationism and universalism, appear sufficient to show that the dogmas of Nicaea were not believed “always and everywhere”, and that the authority of that council could, on those grounds, likewise be contested.
Your objection doesn’t really work, for two reasons.
Most importantly, the earliest Church plainly did deliberate corporately on doctrinal disputes. Acts 15: there the apostles and elders gather to consider the controversy over the Gentiles, there is substantial debate, Peter speaks, James gives judgment, and the final decision is issued in the name of the Church with the words: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” That is unmistakably a conciliar and authoritative apostolic determination of a disputed doctrinal matter.
Secondly, Vincent of Lérins (which you quoted with “always and everywhere” in an attempt to undermine the catholicity of Constantinople II) doesn’t mean a mathematically exceptionless unanimity when he speaks of what has been believed “always and everywhere”.
In fact, in the Commonitorium, he immediately glosses this rule as universality, antiquity, and consent, and he defines consent as the agreement of “all, or at least almost all, priests and doctors.” That distinction is very important and was absent in your reply. If what you wrote in your reply were correct, then the mere existence of some Fathers who rejected Constantinople II would indeed suffice to show that the anathemas of that council could be disregarded, and that the doctrines defined there were not promulgated with the a binding authority. That is precisely the conclusion I refuted by showing that some Fathers likewise held erroneous doctrines concerning the nature of God, which obviously didn’t render Nicaea any less binding or any less doctrinally true. In other words, the existence of a small number of erroneous Fathers doesn’t by itself invalidate the catholicity of a doctrine.
So, the mere fact that a small minority among the early Fathers employed formulations, and held doctrines, later judged heretical by Nicaea, Constantinople II, and, subsequently, the Fourth Lateran Council, doesn’t prove that either Nicaea or Constantinople II violated catholicity.
Let me cite his (of Vincent of Lerins, which you tried to cite against the Church) verbatim words
Commonitorium, chapter 2 paragraph 6: “Moreover, in the Catholich Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic*,* which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith true to be, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”
Again from the Commonitorium, chapter 3, paragraphs 7/8: “What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few.”
Your claims seem to be somewhat blind to the context.
When the Apostles (those selected and sent by Jesus himself) and apostles (others who were sent) started the spread the teachings of Jesus, the oral teaching and the earliest writings were two parts of the same teaching. Both were ‘early tradition’ and supported each other. The writings helped to spread the oral teaching to multiple places simultaneously and the oral teaching helped to clarify the teachings because oral communication includes a better possibility to clarify what was told.
After the generations of the original wittnesses and those who had heard their teaching died, the biblical scriptures maintained their teachings (early tradition) for the following generations. Oral teachings probably followed the same teaching for some time. As the temporal and cultural distance to the original scene grew, the later teachings/tradition started to slowly drift away from the original teachings.
You may believe that this drift was just defining the original teachings more accurately but that is your interpretation, not something others would call a fact.
‘Sola scriptura’ is an often misunderstood slogan. It does not mean that only what is written is reliable. It means that if the current teachings seem to differ from the early tradition as written in the biblical scriptures, we should trust the early tradition more than the altered versions.
Even the rule of faith (that is, apostolic tradition). as I have shown by citing Church Fathers who lived centuries after the original Apostles.”
But this isn’t true. There was no departure from the substance of the teaching; there was only clarification.
It is true that others would not call it a fact. What is questionable, however, is whether they are right not to do so. Take Purgatory, for example: it is often cited as something the early Church did not believe in, but that is simply not true, quite the contrary, in fact. Certainly, the early Christians did not yet have all the doctrinal details fully worked out, just as the pre-Nicene Fathers did not. That is why, as I have shown, Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch held views that were later understood to be erroneous in light of Nicaea. Nevertheless, they did believe in post-mortem purification. In the same way, they believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist is truly the flesh and blood of Christ.
Most importantly, the Fathers believed that, when disputes arise, final interpretive authority belongs to the Church alone, not to the individual Christian. Yesterday I spent several hours (easily more than four or five) gathering the patristic and historical evidence for this.
Just to make another example I didn’t make yesterday, this time about Origen, in the book Biblical Scholarship and the Church, from Allan K.Jenkins https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781317174370_A30904122/preview-9781317174370_A30904122.pdf from page 29 of the pdf: “The approach to the interpretation of scripture which Origen set out systematically for the first time articulated parameters for interpretation that were still firmly in place at the beginning of the sixteenth century. In particular, interpretation was subordinate to the authority of the church’s magisterium set out in its rule of faith, and its practice required skilled theologians and teachers able to penetrate its hidden spiritual meaning,”
And just a two pages earlier at page 27 of the same pdf: “The controlling guide for interpretation was for Origen, like Clement of Alexandria and others before him, the church’s rule of faith ‘which was delivered by Jesus Christ to the apostles and which they delivered in succession to their followers who teach the heavenly Church’.36 At that time a number of essential doctrinal issues which were later to be dealt with by councils of the church had yet to be resolved, and Origen’s views on some of these opened him up to later charges of unorthodoxy.37 Nevertheless the principle he affirmed of the church’s supreme authority in interpretation by means of the rule of faith remained fundamental and unquestioned until the sixteenth century.“
During the first centuries (prior to year 250), the local churches were relatively independent and had partly differing practices. There were connections between the churches and the exchange of information, traveling speakers and scripture tended to harmonize the teaching, so the core teachings probably did not differ much. There were also apologetically oriented people who attacked against the teachings they judged to be false - we have such writings even in the NT.
The major attempts to harmonize the teachings started from the times of the ecumenical councils.
After the church of Rome started to get a growing role within the western parts of the former Roman empire, they got a dominant position in interpretation.
The winners write the history, so what we know about history is skewed.
It is probably true that most people did not question the interpretations of the church. The ability and possibility to read the scriptures was a priviledge of few and they were trained by the church. Deeper study and interpretation was the priviledge of a much smaller group. Those questioning the teachings of the church were not treated well. That all suggests that the church of Rome did have a monopoly of interpretation within the western Europe for crudely 1000 years. It does not quarantee that all the interpretations or doctrines were fully correct or in full accordance with the earliest tradition.
It is an interesting question how the evolution of the leadership structures affected the development of the teachings within the churches. It is a partly separate question, so I leave that question and speculation for possible future discussions.
A major problem with most apologetical discussions and writings is that the history and the writings are cited in a skewed way. There may be a more neutral approach towards questions that are not so important. In questions that are important for the beliefs of an individual or church, the most favourable details are told and the less favourable parts are left in darkness.
Unfortunately, that seems to also be the case for many learned academic persons. When I have read books written by professors, I have often been disappointed to observe that what they write is a defence of their own beliefs rather than a more balanced description of the topic. It does not matter if their interpretations differ from mine, as long as they give a balanced and broad presentation of the topic and explain well why all the material points to one of the alternatives. That does not seem to be the case in most books telling about topics that are somehow important for their beliefs. So, citing respected academic writers is not always a quarantee that what they write is a neutral approach or even correct. Citing the early writers (‘Fathers’) is not either a quarantee that what they claim is in full accordance with the biblical scriptures.
I’m quite skeptical that true neutrality is even possible. Perhaps a Hindu scholar could be neutral, for example, as he has no “dog in the fight”. Otherwise even an atheist who grew up in a western country will tend (if possible) to favour some denomination he perceives in a better way. The real question is whether what they say is historically accurate.
But again, judging on an individual basis whether something is fully in accordance with Scripture is neither a biblical teaching nor a practice of the early Church. In the early Church, it was believed that the authentic interpretation of Scripture belonged to the Church, not to the Fathers. Some of them, after all, were shown to have held erroneous views in good faith before these questions were fully clarified (Origen, for example, as already mentioned, believed in the final restoration of the damned and the fallen angels, Although the vast majority of the Fathers didn’t share this view, it hadn’t yet been formally condemned; and had it been condemned during his lifetime, he would surely have submitted to the Church rather than causing a schism by founding a so-called “universalist Church”), Still less did the authority to interpret Scripture belong to the individual layman.
The Fathers are valuable because they help us understand what the early Church actually believed, and whether later doctrinal clarifications do or do not contradict the broader faith of the early Church.
A great point of history, Massimiiano. And that may be the major reason that so many non-Christian faiths evolved even further after Christ. Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism, the indigenous peoples ideas preceded Christianity of course, but they have evolved somewhat. And without Judaism we would be lost indeed.
I’ve often thought about it in the context of a Bible study group, usually when confronted with obvious bias, prejudice, or inflated egos. We all see these traits every single day, don’t we? When discussing a controversial or misunderstood topic, someone will usually cite a passage in our scripture which seems to tell him all he needs to know. But it is much more complicated than that.
Some have called embracing the thinking of the “Spiritually Independent” person an ability to enlarge and complement one’s faith. It is an interesting topic to ponder. It is NOT a “middle ground” for faith, but rather a different framework altogether. So even those folks do not agree to their principles.
There are critics of “spiritual independence” of course. But proponents seem to focus on several aspects that would appeal to most of us. One possibility is that a more realistic ‘truth’ that is defined by what we encounter, not just what a second-hand authority tells us. Another benefit is that he can learn from many sources, as no single source has a monopoly on truth. You become your own ‘interpreter,’ and your discernment replaces previous obedience. You begin to ask what is true and what transforms you, rather than what religion you follow.
To do this, many find that they must resist doctrinal truths and rigid dogma. This is the hard part for many/most Christians. They cannot resist quoting scripture, which they present as evidence for their viewpoint.
The tension and risk is that as you may claim liberation from a narrow system, is that you might be led to a fragmented and “self-confirming” belief if you pick-and-choose your way to faith. I really like the concept and idea that much can be gained from listening to wise people offer wisdom derived from thousands of years of faith. Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism, the indigenous peoples, etc., provide a more complete set of data from which to derive comfort in our faith. That is not, in any way, meant to advocate moral equivalence, much less to abandon our faith.
You wrote an extremely valuable post. I don’t have time right now (or better yet I could reply but your post deserved a more thoughtout response) but I will reply as soon as I can. ;))
Amen.
The first rule of literature is to interpret it in its context, and the context of the New Testament is second-Temple Judaism, it is not traditions of men.
But that is your view (that they were merely “traditions of men”). The early Church didn’t see them that way at all. Rather, it regarded apostolic tradition (the rule of faith) and Scripture as equally important, and it didn’t believe that Scripture could be interpreted apart from the living teaching authority of the Church. Of course, someone may argue that the early Church was wrong; everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and no one can be forced to change their mind. Still, it isn’t surprising that, for many Christians (in fact, for most Christians, considering that Catholics and Orthodox together number around 1.6 to 1.7 billion people) it seems rather unreasonable to believe that the truth and the proper interpretation of Scripture remained undiscovered for sixteen centuries.
The context of literature isn’t what other people like them are writing. The context is who the writing is directed at. The first irons literature flat into unsurprising mediocrity – and that just isn’t what literature consists of. Literature is full of surprises with people saying revolutionary things not just the same-old things repeated endlessly. The second starts with the target’s assumptions and then redirects them to a new paradigm – helping them to think of things in a completely new way.
So for example, the NT is written to a people who assumes gods must be appeased with sacrificial offerings. But from that context, it is actually saying something opposite, something revolutionary, God is the one making an offering to appease (alter the heart of) mankind.
You write as if the early church would have been a unified institution. It was not.
In the earliest phase, there were largely independent but connected local churches. In modern terminology, it might be called a congregational system. All the local churches that accepted very basic core beliefs (‘the teachings of all the apostles’) were counted as belonging within the general umbrella of ‘catholic’ churches.
The second phase started when the leadership structures changed from a leading group (‘elders’) to the leadership of one episcopos (‘bishop’). This was also the period when the hierarchical system developed among the nominated workers and also between the nominated workers and the rest of the congregation (clergy vs. lay). If I have correctly understood, at that phase the local churches started to clot to larger but still local/regional units lead by a bishop. A local ‘episcopal’ church formed typically around a central city, from which the bishop lead all the home churches within the nearby area.
The formation of a unified group of ‘catholic’ churches started after Christianity became first an accepted and then the state religion of the Roman empire. At the first ecumenical councils, the local/regional churches were still relatively independent.
The formation of a tighter institution that had unified doctrines was a process that started after the western parts of the Roman empire collapsed (year 476) and the bishop of Rome got gradually a stronger role among the western (Latin) churches. In the eastern parts of the Roman empire (later called Byzantine by historians) the leadership of the emperor was a unifying factor and the growing mistrust to the group of Latin churches and the demands of the bishop of Rome brought the ‘Greek churches’ tighter together.
For me, the ‘early church’ (early phase) is the period before the emperor Constantine, the ecumenical councils and the unification of local/regional churches to two tighter institutions, the Latin churches grouped around the leadership of the church of Rome and the Orthodox churches.
During the early phase, there was no unified ‘Church’ who decided what was the correct interpretation.
“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?”
And Iraeneus was born in 130 A.D
So while it’s true that it wasn’t strictly unified, the rule of faith (namely the apostolic tradition) was certainly important and there wasn’t the idea that the interpretation of the Scriptures belonged to the individual.
And the “most ancient churches” held a primacy and a special place when it came to giving the right interpretation.
Also concerning Iraeneus, it’s useful to cite book from Everett Ferguson I linked here Salvation without Christ - #104 by 1Cor15.54
““Irenaeus’s argument from apostolic succession for the validity of the church’s teachings, and his appeal to the canon of truth as the proper standard for the interpretation of Scripture, were lasting contributions to the catholic understanding of the ministry of the church and tradition.“The Word of God became man; he who is Son of God was made Son of Man in order that humanity, by being taken into the Word and receiving adoption, might become the child of God” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.19.1). Significant for the future, and controversial in its meaning, was the place Irenaeus gave to the Roman church. The crucial passage (preserved only in Latin) literally reads as follows,“For with [or to] this church [Rome] on account of the more potent principality it is necessary that every church should agree [or come together, resort], that is those who from every place are faithful, in which [church] there is always preserved by these who are from every place the tradition which is from the apostles” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). Almost every key word is controverted, but it seems that Irenaeus is presenting the Roman church as a mirror of the universal church; representatives from churches all over the empire came to Rome as the capital city, and so there was found in the Roman church witness to the common apostolic tradition Iraeneus is important for representing the orthodox reaction to the problems of heresy in the second century. His approach articulated the premises on which the old catholic church developed. He stressed the fundamental Christian doctrines: one God, goodness of creation, redemption through the one Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the body, the historical roots of the Christian faith, and the authority of Scripture rightly interpreted. He was typical of the old catholic church in anticipating doctrines that were to assume greater importance in the future: the apostolic succession of bishops, the rule of faith [apostolic tradition] as the standard for interpreting the Bible, the appeal to the material elements of the eucharist as embodying spiritual realities, and a place for Mary (the new Eve) in his theology of recapitulation. Iraeneus was thus both a “biblical” theologian and a “catholic” theologian. “
It’s really, really, really hard to claim the early Church Fathers held something that was even close in any way shape or form to the tenets of the reformers.
This is a not a theological argument but an historical one. Theologically one could theoretically claim that even the early Church fathers had gone astray (since they also believed in many others things that were rejected by the reformers, such as post-mortem purifications, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist -contrary to what Zwingli said- the importance of Mary, the communion of the Saints and so on), and that we’ve had to wait 15 centuries to return to the truth. It’s not an intrinsically impossible claim to make. Whether it’s a reasonable claim or not is another kettle of fish entirely (and also subjective because for some people it could actually indeed be reasonable to believe such a thing).
But historically speaking we can say a thing or two about the subject and about the beliefs held by the early Church. To make an example: the claim that the early church fathers did believe in the real (not symbolic at all) presence of Christ in the Eucharist (if validly officiated) is an historical argument, the claim that they were right or wrong is a theological one.
In Adversus Haeresis (a Latin translation of the original Greek text that we do not have), Irenaeus tried to back up his claims by lifting up various points that would support his claims. One point was to show that his interpretations agreed with the early Apostolic teachings. For this purpose, he lifted up the churches that were supposed to have inherited the teachings from the original Apostles. The rationale was that if these churches agree with me but not you, then my interpretations are correct and yours false. Irenaeus could have selected any of the earliest churches but he picked up one, Rome. We can speculate that one reason was that he was living in Ludlum, a Roman garrison town, and Rome was still the capital of the Roman empire. Irenaeus seemed to assume that at that point, the teachings within the earliest churches, including Rome, were faithful to the earliest tradition.
I value the writings of Irenaeus but interpret his writings in the context of his time and purposes.
The interpretations stressing the primacy of the church of Rome tend to be somewhat anachronistic. As I explained in my previous comment, there was not yet a unified ‘Church’ or unified doctrines. The early Apostolic teachings were the ‘rule’ and the role of the earliest churches were lifted up from the viewpoint and expectation that these churches still held the early Apostolic teachings.
AFAIK, the writings of Irenaeus are valued more in the Orthodox than the western tradition. The Orthodox tradition does not support the primacy of the church of Rome, so they seem to have a different interpretation about these points of the writings.
By the way, these writings are one reason why the eastern tradition have a differing teaching about Adam & Eve and the fall (‘original sin’) than the church of Rome.
Are they, though?
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies III.3.2 CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus) : “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches , we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [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 [potiorem principalitatem].
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54.14 (to Cornelius CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle 54 (Cyprian of Carthage) : “After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; “
Jerome, Letter 15.2 (to Damasus) CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 15 (Jerome) : “Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 this is the Ark of Noah , and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. “
Augustine, Letter 43.7, ch.3, paragraph 7** CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 43 (St. Augustine) : “Carthage was also near to the countries beyond the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these Churches.”
Then we have the Libellus Hormisdae , citation from Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, page 66 .https://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/fdbrp/dvornik_byzantium_and_the_roman_primacy_1979.pdf : “the first great misunderstanding between Rome and Byzantium, the Schism of Acacius, thereby came to an end in a friendly agreement and the prestige of Rome was, without any doubt, considerably enhanced in the eyes of the Byzantines. Even though the declarations on the Roman Primacy contained in the Libellus Hormisdae had certainly appeared to be rather strong to the members of the Greek hierarchy, nevertheless, all the bishops signed it. “
The fathers talked quite clearly about supremacy, primacy, chief Church etc etc.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.