BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.
Umm, yeah, THE final authority:
"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."
You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.
That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:Quote:
"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.
Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.
For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.
These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.
Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:Quote:
Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.Quote:
Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.Quote:
In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.Quote:
In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."
In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.
So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?
Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.
Read his quote again:
"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)
He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.
It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.
Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.
No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".
Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?