Old Dead Guys
Something else that has been mentioned in the comments that have been made in as a result of my “mildly critical post” of he-who-will-not-be-named (Yes, I let my children read those books. They’re funny.) is how I quote those old dead guys (meaning the Early Church Fathers) and not scripture to make my point. Well I have a few quibbles. In the earthly sense of the word, the guys who wrote the Sacred Scriptures are not any less dead than the Early Church Fathers. In the same sense that the Early Church Fathers are dead so are those who wrote both the books of the Bible. Second, in the spiritual sense of the word they are not dead at all. They are part of the “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) that surrounds us. They’re alive in Christ. So if you are going to criticize me because I quote “dead guys” then, by the same logic you must stop quoting Sacred Scripture. End quibble.
Next. I do not quote the Old Dead Guys (ECF’s) instead of Sacred Scripture. I quote them as authoritative, interpretive commentary to Sacred Scripture. And while I am at it, I don’t quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of Sacred Scripture either.
What makes the Early Church Fathers important? First, the Apostles didn’t write everything down.
John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
2 Thessalonians Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
What did Jesus teach the Apostles in the 40 days from the Resurrection to the Ascension for instance? Think it was important? I do. If Jesus intended for the Church to be ruled by Sacred Scripture alone then, why did it take so long for the Apostles to write down the books that became the New Testament? Is the testimony of what the Apostles DID in terms of forming the church and educationing their students any less convincing that what they wrote? And when it comes to scriptural exegesis, who better to turn to that the students of the Apostles themselves?! They knew the culture better than we ever will. They knew the language and the context better than we ever will. AND they had the benefit of being closely tutored by those who witnessed these events themselves.
The Early Church Fathers never, EVER overrule Sacred Scripture. They explain it. Capital ‘T’ tradition (things like the Trinity….little ‘t’ tradition or disciplines are things like fish on Fridays and clerical celibacy) is ALWAYS best understood and the authoritative interpretation of scripture. Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We didn’t just dream that up. It’s right there in scripture. “This is my Body.” “This is my Blood” etc. Now when some people say “He was speaking symbolically,” the Catholic Church says “No.” Here’s where and why Sacred Scripture says He wasn’t speaking symbolically. And here’s comfirmation from those who were the first students of the Apostles. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke forcefully for the Real Presence. In fact, one of the very first declared heresies of the early church was the denial of the Real Presence. Why is St. Ignatius of Antioch’s testimony important? Because he was a student of St. John the Apostle!! St. John the Apostle was IN THE ROOM with Jesus when he instituted the Eucharist and He would be an excellent judge of just what Jesus meant. We can study and study and study but we will have no better insight into those events than those who sat at the feet of Jesus and THEIR students reflect that insight.
Another reason to pay attention to what the Early Church Fathers wrote and taught is because THEY are the ones who set the canon. The only part of the Sacred Scripture written by God himself is Exodus 20:2-17. The rest God inspired men to write and it was inspired men of God who sorted through and set the canon. Clearly the hand of God was in it all. However, it was authority outside the Sacred Scriptures themselves that determined what was and was not inspired by God. The men who were so full of the Holy Spirit set a canon that is universally acknowledged by Christians (leaving aside the deutero-canonical question) did not chose books that repudiated what the church believed and taught at the time!! They believed in Church Authority and believe that was taught in the canon of Sacred Scripture they set. They believed in Apostolic Authority and One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. They had Bishops, and Priests, and Deacons. They baptized converts and infants for the remission of sins. They sucessfully defended the church against the first heresies. They were right when they said the Marcionites were heretics. They were right when they said Arians were heretics. They were right when they said the Nestorians were heretics. They were right when they said the Monophysites were heretics. They were right when the said the Pelagians were heretics. They were right when they said the Donatists were heretics. They were right when they said the Gnostics were heretics. (Thank you kindly Shellie for making that little list easy.) When did they start to be wrong? In the 1500’s? I will be the first to admit that there were problems but just as you stick around when a marital covenant gets tough you do NOT pack up and start your own church on your own authority when there are problems in the church. There is only ONE Church….you don’t get to start a new one. Anyway, all of those things are FIRST found in scripture and then reinforced in the Sacred Tradition of the Church as reflected in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. You can sit with your Bibles and study all day and you may get some terrific insight but it is absolute craziness to use Sacred Scripture to attempt to prove something OTHER than what the Early Church Fathers believed and taught. Who is MORE likely to reflect the teaching of Our Lord? Those who were close in time, and in culture, and in language, and had the original manuscripts AND who had Apostolic Authority often given to them by the Apostles themselves!? Or us in our own little personal Bible study?
By what authority do you accept the canon of Sacred Scripture handed down to us by the Early Church Fathers and then reject what they believed those Sacred Scriptures taught us?
Next and more minor point. Why quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Because I have found that what people “think” Catholics believe and teach is not at all what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches. Sometimes in order to explain what Catholics really believe it is necessary to quote from the Catechism to “set the record straight.” Another reason to quote from the Catechism is….er…for lack of a kind term…ordained/religious/public heretics. Often the mainstream media likes to find a really liberal priest or nun and portray his/her wacky thinking as what Catholics teach. Or somebody leaves the Catholic church and claims that “their priest kept the Bibles locked up and only let us read them on Easter!” Well it may be that their priest did keep the Bibles locked up and only let them see the Bible on Easter but he wasn’t supposed to and I can prove it. Because there IS a standard, I can say that no matter what authority the wackly priest claims to have had he was in the wrong and he’s why…. To that end, let me quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to Scripture and Tradition. (And I will quote from this passage repeatedly when anyone tells me that the Catholic Church ignores Sacred Scripture in favor Tradition, etc. etc. etc.)
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42
“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. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
Find out more (and there is quite a lot more) about what the Catholic Church really teaches about Sacred Scripture and Tradition and Divine Revelation and the magisterium here.
