The Authority of the Church
Searching
For Authority
Christopher Dixon
From
the Editor
Marcus Grodi
A
Hop Skip and a Great Leap
Doug Trout
The
Crisis of Authority in the Reformation
Kenneth
J. Howell, Ph.D
"Have
you not Read?"
Robert Sungenis
The
Rule of Faith in Patristic Thought
J.A. Gallegos
Authority
in the Catechism
Gayle Somers
Papal
Infallibility
David Palm
Scripture
and Tradition
Mark P.
Shea
The
Authority to Preach
Marcus C.
Grodi
Before
You Object...
Kenneth
J. Howell, Ph.D
Other Journals
The Rule of Faith in Patristic
Thought
By J. A. Gallegos
‘
Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set’ (Prov.
22:28 RSV).
Regarding the authorities of
Scripture, Tradition and a teaching Church, there are a number of recurring
themes throughout the writings of the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers
consisted of those men who exhibited these four marks: (1) orthodoxy
in teaching, (2) holiness in life, (3) Church approval and (4) antiquity.
Some partially fulfilled these marks such as Tertullian, Origen and
Eusebius of Ceasarea. They have been included in this article due to
their invaluable contribution to the Church.
Sufficiency of the Scriptures
First, the Fathers found that the most perfect expression of the apostolic
heritage is to be found within the pages of Holy Writ. Irenaeus (ca.
A.D. 140-ca. A.D. 202) writes:’[B]eing most properly assured that
the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word
of God and His Spirit.’ (Against Heresies 2,28:2). Athanasius (ca.
A.D. 295-A.D. ca. 373), the great Patriarch of Alexandria, writes:’ [T]he
tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other
sources.’ (Nicene Definition 32).
It is clear that the Fathers affirmed that all of the doctrines of the
Catholic faith are to be found within the Bible. If the doctrine is not
found within its covers, then the doctrine is clearly not apostolic.
Tertullian of Carthage (ca. A.D. 155/160-ca. A.D. 240/250) writes: ’If
it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all
who add or to take away from the written word.’ (Against Hermogenes
22). Ambrose (ca. A.D. 533-ca. A.D. 397), the bishop of Milan, writes: ’For
how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?’ (Duties
of the Clergy I,23:102). Augustine, the bishop of Hippo (ca. A.D. 354-ca.
A.D. 430), writes: ’[W]hat more can I teach you, than what we read
in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that
we dare not ‘be wise more than behoveth to be wise;’ ...
Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to you
the words of the Teacher.’ (Widowhood 2). Cyril of Alexandria (died
A.D. 444) writes: ’Not all that the Lord did was written down,
but only what was deemed sufficient, either from the point of view of
morals, or from the point of view of dogmas.’ (Comm. John 12).
The Fathers often appealed to Scripture for justifying and proving the
apostolicity of Catholic doctrines. Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185-ca.
A.D. 253/254) writes: ’In proof of all words which we advance in
matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as
confirming the meaning which we are proposing....Therefore we should
not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone
shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures
as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25). Hippolytus of Rome
(died A.D. 235) writes: ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge
of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against
Noetus 9). Likewise, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. A.D. 315-ca. A.D. 386) writes: ’For
concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual
statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we
be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to
me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou
receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.
For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning,
but on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.’ (Catechetical
Lectures 4:17).
Passages similar to these on behalf of the authority of Scripture can
be culled from the Fathers without end. The Church Fathers clearly affirmed
the material sufficiency of the Scriptures. In fact, one may be tempted
to present these passages in support of the novel idea that the Church
Fathers embraced sola scriptura. However, when one examines the faith
of these very same Fathers one can find equally forceful and authoritative
testimony on behalf of Tradition and a teaching Church. Therefore, when
the Church Fathers speak on sufficiency and authority of Scripture they
do so not in a vacuum but within the context of the Church and her inerrant
Tradition. The Fathers never separated Scripture from the Church and
her Tradition.
Sacred Tradition
The second recurring theme throughout the writings of the Church Fathers
is that these very same Scriptures are to be understood and interpreted
only within the milieu of the Church’s Tradition. A private understanding
of Scripture is the fatal flaw of the heretic. According to the Church
Fathers, Tradition was simply the entire apostolic deposit that was transmitted
to the Church along with Scripture. Irenaeus writes: ’For how should
it be of the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not
be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of tradition which
was handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ (Against
Heresies 3,4:1). In other words, the substance of Tradition is materially
coincident with Scripture.
Both Scripture and Tradition were essentially the same in substance differing
primarily in their degree of explicitness and mode of transmission. The
substance of Tradition was transmitted to subsequent generations of the
Church through various monuments. These traditional monuments include
such things as the texts of the magisterium, liturgy, the writings of
the Church Fathers, catechesis, art, creeds, and the faith of the Church.
The Fathers understood Tradition and Scripture as complementary authorities.
The Fathers never pitted Scripture against Tradition or asked the question
which authority was greater. Tradition was utilized not so much in providing
material truths not contained in Scripture, but rather as the surest
guide in interpreting the Sacred text. This theme was so entrenched in
the faith of the Church Fathers that it became one of their favorite
charges against the heretics of the early Church. Athanasius refuting
the Arians private understanding of Scripture writes: ’ [I]f we
now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using
it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading
of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of
this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on
a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think...[L]et
us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they
interpret ill, has a right interpretation.’ (Against the Arians
3:28,35). Gregory of Nyssa (ca. A.D. 335-ca. A.D. 394) in his refutation
against Eunomius contrasts the ecclesiastical understanding of Scripture
with the heretics private judgement: ’[I]f they were about to bring
over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of
weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without
being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so
brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and
of those who successively shone like lights in the churches, of less
force than this undemonstrated nonsense?’ (Against Eunomius 4:6).
As a result of abandoning the Church and her Tradition, heretics have
divided and dissented among themselves. Athanasius writes: ’For
they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their
fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various
discordant changes.’ (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 14). Similarly,
Ephraem of Syria (ca. A.D. 306-ca. A.D. 373) observes the same: ’For
all heresies delight in division; on the other hand, the true mother,
and the alone church of Christ, avoids dissension and schisms.’ (Comm.
on Sacred Scripture).
Materially, the rule of faith of the early Church consisted of both Scripture
and Tradition. The Fathers often brought together in their writings the
normative authorities of Scripture and Tradition. Athanasius in this
magisterial passage writes: ’But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings,
let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic
Church from the beginning which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached,
and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should
fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so
called.’ (To Serapion 1:28). Basil (ca. A.D. 330-ca. A.D. 374)
in his defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit writes: ’Of the
dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written
teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed
on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force.
No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even
moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to
reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly
injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to
a mere term.’ (Holy Spirit 27:66). Cyril of Alexandria writes: ’[W]e
give thanks to God, the Saviour of the world, rejoicing with one another
that our Churches, both ours and yours, hold a faith in accordance with
the divinely inspired Scriptures and with the tradition of our holy Fathers.’ (To
John of Antioch 39).
Many of the Church Fathers bring forth the very same passages that Catholic
apologists today use in support of the Catholic rule of faith. John Chrysostom
(ca. A.D. 344/354-ca. A.D. 407) writes: ’ ‘So then, brethren,
stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye were taught, whether
by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ [2 Thess 2:15] Hence it is manifest,
that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also
unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of
credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy
of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.’ (Homily 2nd Epistle
to the Thess.). Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-ca. A.D.
403), writes in his work against various heresies: ’However, none
of the sacred words need an allegorical interpretation of their meaning;
they need examination, and the perception to understand each proposition’s
force. But tradition must be used too, for not everything is available
from the sacred scripture. Thus the holy apostles handed some things
down in scripture but some in traditions, as St. Paul says, ‘As
I delivered the tradition to you,’ [1 Cor 11:2] and elsewhere, ‘So
I teach, and so I have delivered the tradition in the churches,’ [1
Cor 4:17] and, ‘If ye keep the tradition in memory, unless ye believed
in vain.’ [1 Cor 15:2]’ (Panarion 61). The Fathers realized
that Tradition as well as her Scriptures could be twisted and misinterpreted.
The Fathers affirmed the Church alone, through her authentic succession
from the Apostles, possessed the authority to interpret and transmit
the entire apostolic deposit.
Teaching Church
The final persistent theme in the faith of the early Church Fathers
is that Christ entrusted the entire deposit of faith to the Church and
the responsibility for interpreting it in an orthodox and authoritative
manner. Irenaeus affirms that the truth is to be found nowhere else but
within the Church writes: ’Since therefore we have such proofs,
it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to
obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing
his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining
to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the
water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves
and robbers.’ (Against Heresies 3,4:1). Athanasius writes: ’[W]e
are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic
Church, nor did the Fathers hold this.’ (Epistle 59:3). Ambrose,
in sharp contrast, compares the authority of the Catholic Church and
the wayward path of heretics: ’Wherefore all other generations
are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the
truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the
truth.’ (Psalm 118:19).
Augustine in this classic passage against Manichaeus writes: ’The
epistle begins thus:—’Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from
the perennial and living fountain.’ Now, if you please, patiently
give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichaeus to be an apostle
of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you
know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration.
Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An Apostle of
Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do;
for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing
me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the
gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus.
But should you meet with a person not yet believing in the gospel, how
would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part,
I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the
Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to
believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I
but consent?’ (Against Ep. Mani 5:6).
Irenaeus of Lyons refuting the Gnostics writes: ’True knowledge
is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient
constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive
manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the
bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every
place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without
any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and
neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths
which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without
falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the
Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all,
it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious
than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the
other gifts [of God].’ (Against Heresies 4,33:8). In other words,
the Scriptures are the property of the Church not the play toy of the
individual.
Likewise, Tertullian offers this classic passage: ’Since this is
the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, ‘as
many as walk according to the rule, ‘ which the church has handed
down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God,
the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics
ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since
we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the
Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians,
because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of
their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name
of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right
to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, ‘Who
are you?’ (Prescription 37). In other words, in order to obtain
the authentic and orthodox sense of Scripture one must do so only within
the Church.
During the patristic period, the ecumenical council was an example of
the Church acting in an infallible and authoritative manner. The creeds,
definitions and canons of the ecumenical councils were binding on the
consciences of all Christians. The Church Fathers had a singular question
in mind in transmitting the faith, was this the faith that was given
to me by my spiritual forefathers in the Church? The Church Fathers did
not care to give their own understanding of Scripture or synthesize doctrines
on the basis of the apostolic data. The Church Fathers did not want to
be considered innovators rather they wanted to be known as faithful transmitters
of the faith. This faithful transmission of the gospel is the purpose
of an ecumenical council. Athanasius commenting on the unimpeachable
authority of the Council of Nicea writes: ’As to the Nicene Council,
it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity,
and for a reasonable object....’Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and
thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their
own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down
was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.’ (Councils
of Ariminum and Seleucia 5).
Vincent of Lerins (died A.D. 450) echos the same idea: ’Next we
expressed our admiration of the humility and sanctity of that Council,
such that, though the number of priests was so great, almost the more
part of them metropolitans, so erudite, so learned, that almost all were
capable of taking part in doctrinal discussions, whom the very circumstance
of their being assembled for the purpose, might seem to embolden to make
some determination on their own authority, yet they innovated nothing,
presumed nothing, arrogated to themselves absolutely nothing, but used
all possible care to hand down nothing to posterity but what they had
themselves received from their Fathers. And not only did they dispose
satisfactorily of the matter presently in hand, but they also set an
example to those who should come after them, how they also should adhere
to the determinations of sacred antiquity, and condemn the devices of
profane novelty.’ (Commonitory 31:82). According to the Fathers,
the Church was given sole authority and responsibility to preserve, transmit
and interpret the apostolic faith.
Lastly, during this patristic period, there was a growing recognition
of the authority of the See of Rome. Rome viewed herself, as did the
Church Fathers, as the primary mouthpiece and expositor of the Catholic
faith. Irenaeus provides us with this classic shortcut to the Church’s
Tradition: ‘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, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical
tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who
exist everywhere.’ (Against Heresies 3,3:2). Athanasius in communion
with the bishops at Sardica write: ’So it seems to us right and
altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province
should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.’ (Council
of Sardica to Pope Julius).
Augustine writes: ’[T]o the Roman Church, in which the supremacy
of an apostolic chair has always flourished’ (Ep. 43). Optatus
of Milevis (ca. A.D. 330-ca. A.D. 385) lists all the Popes from Peter
to Sircius writes: ’[W]ith whom we, and all the world, are united
in communion. Now you Donatists show us your genealogy of your episcopal
ministry’ (Against Parmen.). The Fathers at Ephesus (A.D. 431)
write: ’There is no doubt...that the holy and most blessed Peter,
prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of
the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom ... Our holy and
most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his
successor and holds his place’ (Ephesus Session III). The Fathers
at Chalcedon (A.D. 451) write: ’Peter has spoken through Leo.’ (Chalcedon
Session II). According to the Fathers, the exercise of the authority
of the teaching Church included the everyday teaching of the bishops
throughout the world, the teachings proclaimed by the bishops meeting
in an ecumenical Council and the particular authority vested in the See
of Rome.
Toward Synthesis
Vincent of Lerins’ Commonitory is considered a pinnacle in the
development of the Church’s understanding of authority during the
patristic period. Vincent, in this classic passage, brings together the
Fathers’ understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture, Sacred
Tradition and a teaching Church. Vincent writes: ‘But here some
one perhaps will ask,’ Since the canon of Scripture is complete,
and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what
need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? ‘For
this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all
do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words
in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as
many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds
it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius,
Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very
necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error,
that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles
should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and
Catholic interpretation.’ (Commonitory 2:5).
The testimony of Vincent of Lerins, which represents the faith of the
Fathers, is crystal clear. A private understanding of Scripture apart
from Tradition breeds division, dissension and heresy. Scripture is put
on its highest pedestal only when it is understood by the Church. According
to the Fathers, Scripture is sufficient only within the milieu of the
Church and Tradition.
The Fathers regarded Scripture and Tradition as complementary authorities.
Scripture and Tradition were less considered independent sources as they
were simply two different mediums in transmitting the single deposit
of faith. That is why one can readily find cries from the Fathers such
as ‘all teachings must be in accordance with Scripture’ as
frequent as cries that say ‘all teachings must be in accordance
with Tradition’ or ‘this teaching must be in accordance with
the ecclesiastical faith.’
The title ‘Church Father’ by itself refutes the notion of
sola scriptura. First, as a Church Father, they were first and foremost
men of the Church, as such, they cared only to transmit the Church’s
understanding of the apostolic faith. Second, as a Church Father, they
cared only to transmit to their spiritual children what was taught to
them by their spiritual forefathers in the church. Augustine writes: ’[T]he
sentiments of the bishops who have gone before us, men who treated these
divine words faithfully and memorably... what they found in the church,
they held; what they had learned, they taught; what they had received
from the fathers, this they delivered to the children.’ (Against
Julian 2,19:34). This is the faith of the Church Fathers and the Catholic
Church. The Fathers at Vatican II write: ‘Sacred Scripture is the
speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy
Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God
which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy
Spirit...Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw truths from
the holy Scripture alone’ (Dei verbum 9). ‘Sacred Tradition
and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God,
which is entrusted to the Church...But the task of giving an authentic
interpretation of the Word of God...has been entrusted to the living
teaching office of the Church alone.’ (Dei verbum 10).
The Church Fathers never separated Scripture, Tradition and Church. If
one separated Scripture or Tradition or the Church they all become crippled.
Once apart, Scripture becomes mere letters and Tradition becomes a lifeless
traditionalism. Similarly, Ambrose and Augustine write: ‘The traditions
of the Scripture are his body; the Church is his body.’ (Comm on
Luke). ‘We learn about Christ in the Scriptures, we learn about
the Church in the Scriptures. If you accept Christ, why do you not accept
the Church?’ (Ep. 105)
Joseph A. Gallegos, is a graduate of the University of California, Irvine
and West Coast University, Los Angeles. He is very active in Catholic
apologetics, having created Corunum Apologetics BBS in 1992, and an
international Web site (http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos) for his
expertise on patristic thought regarding the Papacy and Tradition.
He is the author of “What did the Church Fathers Teach about
Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority” in Not by Scripture
Alone (Queenship, 1997).
No part of this site may be reproduced without the permission of the Coming Home Network.
© 2002
The Coming Home Network International.
All Rights Reserved.
