Protestantism makes no sense at all. "A fallible collection of infallible books?" What on earth does that mean? The Church made the Bible. I am convinced that if anyone looks at the evidence with care, he will certainly become Catholic.

And the Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura:

Augustine said, "But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church (Letter to Januarius, A.D. 400)
Tim | Homepage | 10.28.05 - 12:25 am | #

> And the Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura:

Easy to assert. Harder to prove.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379) We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Prolegomena, 2. Work, 3. Ascetic (iii).

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-95) "...we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." On the Soul And the Resurrection
Randy | Homepage | 10.28.05 - 12:17 pm | #

Yeah, those quotes say the Fathers went by Scripture. They don't say Scripture alone -- big difference. (And neither does the Bible.)

C'mon, folks. Every serious patristics scholar is either Catholic or Orthodox. That has to mean something.
Tim | Homepage | 10.28.05 - 4:37 pm | #

So a Protestant patristics scholar isn't "serious"? That's circular reasoning.

I wouldn't be too quick to claim Orthodox patristics scholars (eg Pelikan) as "second-preference votes" for Catholicism, since on the central RC doctrine of papal supremacy the EOss are closer to Geneva and Wittenberg than to Rome.

If you've read a lot of Catholic apologists, you may be mistaking sola Scriptura for "Scripture is our only authority", when instead it means "Scripture is our only supreme authority" -- exactly what Gregory means by saying "the Holy Scriptures [are] the rule and the measure of every tenet". Of course fallible writings and traditions (of church leaders, and of patristic and other theologians) have authority: they are never to be lightly cast aside. But in the final resort they are always subject to Scripture. They are not of equal authority to it.
Tom R | 10.28.05 - 10:01 pm | #

What you are omitting is the role of the Church as the Body of Christ in determining the authoritative body of Scripture. Saying that it is "hard to prove" that the Church Fathers didn't believe in sola scriptura makes about as much sense as saying that it is hard to prove people in AD 500 didn't believe in lightbulbs.

Well, the thing is this: it didn't even occur to any of the Church Fathers that Scripture could be seen independently from the life of the Church itself, guided by the successors of the Apostles (the bishops). Something like sola scriptura would just not have made any sense to them.

Sacred Tradition also has to be seen in the context of the life of the Church. After the Resurrection, the Apostles went around and preached the Lord Jesus to everyone. This Gospel, handed down by them to the faithful, is the very soul of the Church. The writing of the Scriptures came later, in order to fix these oral traditions and give authoritative texts to dwell on in faith life and in the liturgy.

But what is sure is this: there would be a Christian Church in a world without writing. But there would be no Scripture without the Church.
Petra | Homepage | 11.07.05 - 3:13 pm | #