Just for Catholics is a website where Dr. Mizzi seeks to convince Catholics to leave the Catholic Church. I am reviewing his teachings and comparing them to the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. We are currently on this article. His words in blue.
Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers
Question: You strongly hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura. This teaching is relatively new, it cannot be found anywhere in the history of Christendom until the Protestant reformation in the 16thCentury. I would deeply appreciate if you could show me why you would believe such an erroneous teaching.Excellent question.
Answer: The principle of Sola Scriptura - the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church - is neither new nor erroneous. On the contrary, the Church Fathers testify that they too upheld the Scriptures as the sufficient and authoritative font of divine revelation.
The Church Fathers, as does the Church today, upheld the Scriptures as sufficient and authoritative. But not the Scriptures ALONE.
The Fathers also held tradition in high esteem,
Amen!
but for them tradition was not a supplementary source of divine doctrines in addition to the teaching of the Scripture.
Nor is it to us today. Here is the teaching from the Catechism:
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." 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".
Historian Philip Schaff explains:
“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…
Notice how "with equal confidence" the Church fathers refer to Tradition and Scripture.
the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings…
Amen! Catholic Teaching.
In the narrower sense, by apostolic tradition or the rule of faith was understood a doctrinal summary of Christianity, or a compend of the faith of the church.” History of the Christian Church, II:12.
Nothing there with which I disagree. A very Catholic statement. I don't know how Dr. Mizzi thought that it supported his view?
In the next portion of his message, Dr. Mizzi highlights portions of statements made by some of the Early Church Fathers. In everyone of them, the Early Church Fathers declare their view of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. But never do they suggest that we must keep Scripture alone.
I will prove that Dr. Mizzi is wrong in attributing to any Church Fathers the doctrine of Scripture alone by putting his excerpts in their proper context. And by providing other writings of the Church Fathers where they accept doctrines which Protestants who keep Sola Scriptura claim are not in Scripture.
The following quotations prove that the Fathers considered the Scriptures as both sufficient
That is Catholic doctrine.
and the highest authority in the church.
That doctrine, Scripture as highest authority, has never been disputed by the Church. In fact, many Catholics are lobbying for the acceptance of this doctrine. They call it "Prima Scriptura".
The doctrine which is condemned by the Church is called "SOLA Scriptura". So, let's begin.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III.First, as you can see, St. Irenaeus acknowledges that the plan of salvation was handed down. That is Sacred Tradition. However, taken out of context, this little blurb implies that they discontinued that practice after the Scriptures were written. Let us get a bit more context:
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 did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
St. Irenaeus is here talking about those who deny the Scriptures:
2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, ....
Second, St. Irenaeus points out that these same heretics, also deny Tradition:
2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.....
Third, and then, St. Irenaeus notes that these heretics fail to recognize the pre eminent authority of the Scriptures? No! Of the Church:
2.3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points...
3.1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. ....
3.2. 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 pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Three things I'd like to point out above.
1. That Dr. Mizzi's church does not meet with nor agree with this same Church which St. Irenaeus calls pre-eminent.
2. That nobody who believes Sola Scriptura will accept the doctrine highlighted above. It is called the Primacy of the Pope or the Primacy of Peter. Evangelicals deny this doctrine. If St. Irenaeus believed in Sola Scriptura, he would not believe in the pre-eminence of the See of Peter.
3. There is no indication here that Tradition will stop because of the advent of Scripture.
There is one more thing I'd like to point out. St. Irenaeus also mentions:
4.1. 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. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? 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?
In other words, St. Irenaeus points out that if there had been no Scriptures, the Church and Tradition would suffice.
Lets move on to the next.
Athanasius; Against the Heathen, I:3.Here's more context before and after that quotation, this translation uses the word "sacred" instead of "holy":
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
PART 1
The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius , come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable.....
In other words, although the Sacred Scriptures are sufficient, it is wise to seek understanding from the Church in order to learn how to interpret them.
Athanasius, De Synodis.
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
The Church has stated the doctrines so exactly he says, that one learns from it the religion of Jesus Christ. Lets read a bit more of that letter:
7. Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in difficulty whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they have nothing left but to say; 'Forasmuch as we contradict our predecessors, and transgress the traditions of the Fathers, therefore we have thought good that a Council should meet ;
And again, he chastises those who contradict the Tradition handed down by the Fathers of the Church.
That, I hope, puts the words of St. Athanasius in context. But does St. Athanasius believe the things which Catholics believe but which Evangelical Protestants deny are in Scripture?
Lets see. Do Protestants believe that Mary is ever virgin? No. They flatly deny this because they claim there is no evidence in Scripture. St. Athanasius however, believes this doctrine:
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
The Church has stated the doctrines so exactly he says, that one learns from it the religion of Jesus Christ. Lets read a bit more of that letter:
7. Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in difficulty whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they have nothing left but to say; 'Forasmuch as we contradict our predecessors, and transgress the traditions of the Fathers, therefore we have thought good that a Council should meet ;
And again, he chastises those who contradict the Tradition handed down by the Fathers of the Church.
That, I hope, puts the words of St. Athanasius in context. But does St. Athanasius believe the things which Catholics believe but which Evangelical Protestants deny are in Scripture?
Lets see. Do Protestants believe that Mary is ever virgin? No. They flatly deny this because they claim there is no evidence in Scripture. St. Athanasius however, believes this doctrine:
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.I couldn't find this Homily on the internet. But St. Chrysostom, like the previous two, is a Bishop of the Catholic Church. As such, he is exercising the Tradition of Magisterium in explaining the Scriptures. He isn't saying, go out and read the Scriptures ALONE. He is proving the Teaching he is presenting by using Scripture.
Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
Although I couldn't find this particular homily on the internet. I found another which speaks to St. John Chrysostom's belief in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium:
John Chrysostom
"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 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 (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]).
He that believes in the Son has everlasting life." Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,' someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?' By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven'; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1[circa A.D. 391]).
Since Sola Scripturists claim that this doctrine is not in Scripture, then it is obvious that St. John Chrysostom does not believe in Sola Scriptura.
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity.This is the Catholic Teaching. We have the Dogmas compared to the inspired Scriptures. Note that he doesn't suggest Scripture alone. We'll take a bit more of that context so that you can see what he actually says:
For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
...What then? Are they weary after such efforts, and content to rest? Not at all. Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:— They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailingcustom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words....
Church Fathers
So, again, nothing there about Scripture alone. He is teaching the Catholic doctrine of comparing all doctrines to Tradition and Scripture.
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection.I read the entirety of this teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa and he does not mention Tradition at all. However, he does in the previous example AND we can search out other doctrines which Protestants deny because they claim they aren't in Scripture, but St. Gregory of Nyssa, who obviously holds Scripture in very high regard, does accept:
We are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; 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.
How about salvation by faith and works?
Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).
And how about the intercession of the Saints which have passed away?
Do you, [Ephraem] that art standing at the divine altar . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom (Sermon on Ephraem the Syrian [A.D. 380]).
Protestants deny that the doctrine of intercession of the Saints is in Scripture.
Basil, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTCI couldn't find The Morals on the internet. So, I can't see the total context of this excerpt.
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.This one, however, I found here. The title is in Latin, De Spiritu Sancto. And here is the context of that statement:
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
Chapter 7
Against those who assert that it is not proper for with whom to be said of the Son, and that the proper phrase is through whom.
16. But their contention is that to use the phrase with him is altogether strange and unusual, while through him is at once most familiar in Holy Scripture, and very common in the language of the brotherhood. What is our answer to this? We say, Blessed are the ears that have not heard you and the hearts that have been kept from the wounds of your words. To you, on the other hand, who are lovers of Christ, I say that the Church recognizes both uses, and deprecates neither as subversive of the other. For whenever we are contemplating the majesty of the nature of the Only Begotten, and the excellence of His dignity, we bear witness that the glory is with the Father; while on the other hand, whenever we bethink us of His bestowal on us of good gifts, and of our access to, and admission into, the household of God, we confess that this grace is effected for us through Him and by Him....What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, Ideduced from Scripture and laid before you.
That was in chapter 7 of this book. There is a slight difference in the wording used. This translation says "we do not rest" instead of "we are not content". But, all in all, the meaning is not lost in either one. Lets skip to chapter 27 of this book:
66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at theprayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at thedisplaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching....
Wow! I didn't even copy the entire chapter. Not only does St. Basil eloquently show that he is no believer in Sola Scriptura, he goes on to mention several things which we believe which are not in Scripture at all. Obviously, Dr. Mizzi did not bother to read the whole book. He just wanted to search the book for some words which he could use, out of context, to defend his beliefs.
Basil, Moralia, 72:1.I couldn't find this one either. Therefore, I refer you to what St. Basil said above.
The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.
Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6.If you read the entire letter, you'll see that St. Augustine is teaching the eminence of the Church. First lets read a few sentences before this one:
If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.
Chapter 6
7. Furthermore, whether concerning Christ, or concerning His Church, or any other matter whatsoever which is connected with your faith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means to be compared with him who said, "Though we," at any rate, as he went on to say, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which" you have received in the lawful and evangelical Scripture, "let him be accursed."...
Did you notice how St. Augustine EQUATES Christ and His Church? Lets go back one more Chapter:
Chapter 5
6. Do you, therefore, holy scions of our one Catholic mother, beware with all the watchfulness of which you are capable, in due submission to the Lord, of the example of crime and error such as this....
Did you notice how he calls the Church our mother? Only Catholics speak of holy mother Church. St. Augustine is not here preaching Scripture alone. Let us see what else St. Augustine believes which Evangelicals don't hold:
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).
Do you know anyone who holds Sola Scriptura and believes in the Holy Eucharist? I don't.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV:17.Lets see what St. Cyril says in lecture 17:
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 you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you 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 demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
That's a teaching on the Primacy of Peter.
Lets see what St. Cyril says in lecture 19:
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so. . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid„ 22:6,9).
Stay Catholic
That's a teaching on the Holy Eucharist. Can't get any more Catholic than that.
Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.Here, Dr. Mizzi is implying that St. Augustine is calling into question the infallibility of the Church. So, let's address that problem first:
St. Augustine said in another place (Against the Manichaens, chapter 5):
For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? 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 the 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 Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing 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 as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, St. Augustine puts the authority of the Church as equal to the Scriptures.
Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3.That is very good advice which I give to many Protestants. The Scriptures will lead you to the Catholic Church. However, I couldn't find De Unitate Ecclesiae on the Internet. So, lets go to the next one.
Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II, 9.On Christian Doctrine is a book about how to read and understand Scripture. Therefore, it is understandable that St. Augustine is focusing on the Scriptures. However, I call to your mind, St. Augustine's statement above, wherein he puts the Church on the same level of authority as Scripture.
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.
Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis.It's a little funny to me, that Dr. Mizzi would choose this letter, extolling the virtues of virginity and widowhood and the vocation of what amounts to becoming a nun. This is wholly Catholic doctrine which the Evangelicals deny is in Scripture. Yet, St. Augustine, by virtue of the faith he has in the Catholic Church, teaches this Catholic doctrine, from Scripture. But certainly not from Scripture alone as this is Catholic doctrine which few Protestants believe.
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.
Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9.And finally, this one. St. Hippolytus is probably turing over in his grave that his words would be twisted to make one think that he was a teacher of Sola Scriptura. Let us proceed to get the context of this statement. What is this book about?
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source… so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn.
St. Hippolytus is contesting a man who is using Scripture to prove that Christ is the Father. In other words, to deny the Trinity. St. Hippolytus uses Scripture to contradict the heretic.
So, we have one man using Scripture against another man using Scripture. Who decided which one used Scripture correctly?
1. Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. You see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. From his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance. He alleged that he was himself Moses, and that Aaron was his brother.
When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such opinions. Afterwards, however, taking shelter among some, and having gathered round him some others who had embraced the same error, he wished thereafter to uphold his dogma openly as correct. And the blessed presbyters called him again before them, and examined him. But he stood out against them, saying, What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ? And the presbyters replied to him, We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and comes to judge the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we allege. Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the Church.
It was the Bishops of the Catholic Church. The Church, exercising its authority, excommunicated this Noetus. St. Hippolytus, went on to explain the errors of Noetus from Scripture.
That's it for this one. Let me know if you think I've been unfair or if I have misunderstood the message.
Sincerely,
De Maria
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for contributing.