I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.
After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”
His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
I’m responding to Dr. Gagnon’s public Facebook article (9-10-24) with the first line that reads, “The very creation of Scripture and the recognition of the supreme authority of Christ and the apostles establishes prima scriptura.”
Technically, he is not here supporting sola Scriptura per se, but rather, the closely related notion of the preeminence of Scripture. Catholics hold to a “three-legged stool” rule of faith of Bible-Tradition-Church: all in complete harmony with each other. But the citations he provides strongly imply a denial of apostolic succession (which is standard Protestant belief, because it contradicts sola Scriptura, as a sub-species of apostolic tradition). I wrote along these lines on 12-21-21:
We must . . . look to see if Church father X thinks Scripture is formally sufficient for authority (not just materially sufficient, which we agree with) . . . we must examine what he believes about the (binding?, infallible?) authority of tradition, Church (including ecumenical councils), and apostolic succession, because the very question at hand (what is the rule of faith?) has to do with the relation of all those things (all but Scripture being non-infallible, according to sola Scriptura).
For that reason, their beliefs concerning all these other elements have to be examined, in order to understand properly how they views their relationship vis-a-vis each other, and whether or not they adhere to sola Scriptura. as the rule of faith. If they hold to the infallible authority of anything besides Scripture, they do not believe in sola Scriptura.
Dr. Gagnon provided patristic citations that he think support his position. We retort that they do not, since they have to be interpreted within the larger context of other relevant statements by the same Church father. Those other statements that I will produce do not harmonize with Dr. Gagnon’s and Protestants’ rule of faith (sola Scriptura), whereas the statements he produces easily harmonize with the Catholic rule of faith. And that is the asymmetric nature of this particular debate.
Ignatius of Antioch [50-c. 110] [my bolding and italics and dates, as throughout]
*
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles.” (Epistle to the Romans 4)
*
St. Ignatius also wrote, in support of apostolic succession:
. . . that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ. (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 11)
Your presbyters [preside] in the place of the assembly of the apostles . . . (Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 6)
Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, . . . (Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 13)
You . . . should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . (Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 2)
Let all reverence . . . the presbyters as the . . . assembly of the apostles. (Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 3)
This will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with . . . the enactments of the apostles. (Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 7)
See that you all follow . . . the presbytery as you would the apostles; . . . (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
Dr. Gagnon provides one citation from one book; I provide seven from four books. This is how it usually goes in Catholic-Protestant “patristic battles.”
Irenaeus [130-202] (Against Heresies)
*
“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 … handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed ‘perfect knowledge,’ as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (3.1.1)
*
Irenaeus criticized those who “accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.” (3.2.1)
*
“It behooves us to … adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles.” (4.26.4)
*
“True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles…. It consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scripture.” (4.33.8)
*
St. Irenaeus, of course, was a very prominent adherent of apostolic succession and the authority of Church and tradition alongside Holy Scripture. Prominent Protestant church historian Philip Schaff describes his views (and also, Tertullian’s):
Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy.
Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, “sine charta et atramento,” written in their hearts. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, “Catholic Tradition,” 525-526)
Likewise, Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly observed:
His most characteristic thought, however, is that the Church is the sole repository of the truth, and is such because it has a monopoly of the apostolic writings, the apostolic oral tradition and the apostolic faith. Because of its proclamation of this one faith inherited from the apostles, the Church, scattered as it is throughout the entire world, can claim to be one [haer. 1,10,2]. Hence his emphasis [E.g., ib. 1,9,4; 1,10,1 f; 1,22,1] on ‘the canon of the truth’, i.e. the framework of doctrine which is handed down in the Church and which, in contrast to the variegated teachings of the Gnostics, is identical and self-consistent everywhere. In a previous chapter we noted his theory that the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back to the apostles themselves provides a guarantee that this faith is identical with the message which they originally proclaimed. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 192)
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
Tertullian [c. 155-c. 220]
*
“It will be your duty … to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself…. All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith.” (Against Praxeas 11)
*
J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Tertullian’s view on the rule of faith:
[F]or Tertullian what was believed and preached in the churches was absolutely authoritative . . . on occasion [he] described this original message as tradition, using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture . . . Tertullian can refer [de praescr. 21; c. Marc. I, 21;4 5] to the whole body of apostolic doctrine, whether delivered orally or in epistles, as apostolorum traditio or apostolica traditio . . .
Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’s in any important respect . . . In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition [C. Marc. 4, 5; 5, 19; de monog. 2] stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture . . .
But Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were to be set on one side, it would still be found in the doctrine publicly proclaimed by the churches. Like Irenaeus, he found [E.g., de praescr. 21; 32; c. Marc. 4, 5] the surest test of the authenticity of this doctrine in the fact that the churches had been founded by, and were continuously linked with, the apostles; and as a further guarantee he added [De praescr. 28] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .
This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the ‘rule of faith’ (regula fidei), which he preferred to Scripture as a standard when disputing with Gnostics . . . 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 [De praescr. 19] . . .
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. . . . the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 36, 39-41)
This information about Tertullian’s views does not support Gagnon’s take at all. For many Tertullian citations that back up the above summary, see:
* Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220) vs. Sola Scriptura[12-23-21]
*
Hippolytus [d. c. 236]
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source…. All of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn.” (Against Heresies 9)
*
Hippolytus expressly accepts the notion of apostolic succession, which runs counter to sola Scriptura:
Thus, if these things are heard with grace and correct faith, they bestow edification on the Church and eternal life on the believers. I counsel that these things be observed by all with good understanding. For if all who hear the apostolic tradition follow and keep it, no heretic will be able to introduce error, nor will any other person at all. It is in this manner that the many heresies have grown, for those who were leaders did not wish to inform themselves of the opinion of the apostles, but did what they wanted according to their own pleasure, and not what was appropriate. If we have omitted anything, beloved ones, God will reveal it to those who are worthy, steering Holy Church to her mooring in the quiet haven. (The Apostolic Tradition, 1, – c. 215 – translation of Kevin P. Edgecomb, based on the work of Bernard Botte and Gregory Dix, 43)
He refers to an authoritative, binding apostolic Tradition and Church:
Those who are well informed may keep the tradition which has lasted until now, according to the explanation we give of it, and so that others by taking note of it may be strengthened (against the fall or error which has recently occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people), with the Holy Spirit conferring perfect grace on those who have a correct faith, and so that they will know that those who are at the head of the Church must teach and guard all these things. (Ibid.)
None will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching, as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, or disposed to suppress correct doctrine . . . (Refutation of All Heresies, Book I, Preface)
Hippolytus (like St. Paul and other apostles and biblical writers) casually assumes that the oral teaching of the apostles was as binding and authoritative as the written teaching (cf. Mk 6:34, Jn 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2). It is true that he cites a teaching which was recorded in the Bible (Matthew 10:5), but it was originally delivered orally by Jesus and recorded in writing:
Justinus was entirely opposed to the teaching of the holy Scriptures, and moreover to the written or oral teaching of the blessed evangelists, according as the Logos was accustomed to instruct His disciples, . . . (Refutation of All Heresies, Book V)
Patristics scholar Johannes Quasten summarizes:
Throughout his refutation of heresy, he purposes to prove the Church the bearer of truth and the apostolic succession of the bishops the guarantee of her teaching. (Patrology, four volumes, Vol. II: The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus, Allen, Texas: Christian Classics; division of Thomas More Publishing, no date, p. 202)
Dionysius of Alexandria [d. c. 264]
*
“We did not evade objections, … and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others…. With hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (cited in Eusebius, Church History 7.24.7–9)
“We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures…. Do not then believe me because I tell you these things, unless you 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…. Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it…. Whatsoever he has not said, we dare not say. (Catechetical Lectures 4.17-19)
*
Cyril talks about the inspired authority of Scripture, as he should, and as we do, but he places it within the authoritative interpretation of Holy Mother Church. Hence, he wrote:
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. . . . So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. . . . Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. (Catechetical Lectures5:12-13)
He refers to “the tradition of the Church’s interpreters” (Catechetical Lectures 15:13). When Cyril refers to “proof” and “demonstration” from the Scriptures in 4:17, it depends what he means. If he means by that, “all doctrines to be believed are harmonious with Scripture, and must not contradict it,” this is simply material sufficiency and exactly what Catholics believe. If he means, “all doctrines to be believed must be explicitly explained and taught by Scripture and not derived primarily or in a binding fashion from the Church or tradition” then he would be espousing sola Scriptura.
But it’s not at all established that this is what he meant. It is established, on the other hand, that he accepted the binding authority of Church, tradition, and apostolic succession (“that apostolic and evangelic faith, which our fathers ever preserved and handed down to us as a pearl of great price”: To Celestine, Epistle 9). He refers to the passing-on of apostolic tradition:
And now, brethren beloved, the word of instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures, as was possible,. . . (Catechetical Lectures 18, 32)
Make thou your fold with the sheep: flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. . . . The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to you: learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine. (Catechetical Lectures 6, 36)
He speaks in terms of the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith: tradition, Church, and Scripture: all harmonious:
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. . . . for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.
Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank , even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. I charge you, as the Apostle says, before God, who quickens all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that you keep this faith which is committed to you, without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Catechetical Lectures5, 12-13)
At every turn, then, we see that St. Cyril is thoroughly Catholic, and does not teach sola Scriptura.
Augustine of Hippo [354-430]
*
“For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty … to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from [the Scriptures]…. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.” (Letters 148.15)
*
The evidence that St. Augustine rejected what later was known as sola Scriptura is simply overwhelming. He was thoroughly Catholic. See my papers:
*
One of my books that I edited was The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology(2012). I included extensive documentation of his views on the rule of faith, including two pages on apostolic succession, a page on Church infallibility, one on the authority of Church councils, 6 1/2 on the rule of faith, and five on tradition (including oral).
*
Even Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] believed that only “the canonical Scriptures” provided “an incontrovertible proof,” whereas “the doctors of the church” made merely “probable arguments”:
*
“Sacred doctrine makes use of these [sc. magisterial] authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.” (Summa, Pt 1, Q.1, Art 19)
*
I guess if one is determined to misrepresent Augustine’s views, he will likely go on to do the same with St. Thomas Aquinas, too, and so that’s exactly what Dr. Gagnon foolishly attempted to do. Well, it so happens that I also edited the book, The Quotable Summa Theologica (2013), which contains four citations on the infallibility of the Church:
The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples (Jn. 16:13): “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective. (ST 2-2, q. 1, a. 9, sed contra)
. . . the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, . . . (ST 2-2, q. 2, a. 6, ad 3)
. . . an infallible and Divine rule, . . . the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, . . . the teaching of the Church, . . . an infallible rule, . . . (ST 2-2, q. 5, a. 3c)
. . . the universal Church cannot err; since He Who “was heard for His reverence” (Heb. 5:7) said to Peter, on whose profession of faith the Church was founded (Lk. 22:32): “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” (ST Suppl., q. 25, a. 1, sed contra)
It also includes ten citations on tradition. Here are five of them:
Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. (ST 3, q. 27, a. 1c)
We have it on the authority of many saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace. (ST 3, q. 62, a. 1c)
Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is added to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:34): “The rest I will set in order when I come.” (ST 3, q. 64, a. 2, ad 1)
Further, Augustine says (De Cure pro Mort. i): “Of no small weight is the authority of the Church whereby she clearly approves of the custom whereby a commendation of the dead has a place in the prayers which the priests pour forth to the Lord God at His altar.” This custom was established by the apostles themselves according to the Damascene in a sermon on suffrages for the dead [De his qui in fide dormierunt, 3], where he expresses himself thus: “Realizing the nature of the Mysteries the disciples of the Saviour and His holy apostles sanctioned a commemoration of those who had died in the faith, being made in the awe-inspiring and life-giving Mysteries.” This is also confirmed by the authority of Dionysius (Hier. Eccl.), where he mentions the rite of the Early Church in praying for the dead, and, moreover, asserts that the suffrages of the living profit the dead. Therefore we must believe this without any doubt. (ST Suppl., q. 71, a. 2, sed contra)
The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): “Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word”—that is by word of mouth—“or by our epistle”—that is by word put into writing. (ST 3, q. 25, a. 3, ad 4)
Nothing like having research on hand, from 11 and 12 years ago!
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: Contra Dr. Gagnon, Church fathers didn’t believe in sola Scriptura, & accepted the authority of the Church, sacred tradition, & apostolic succession, alongside the Bible.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In