In the debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants concerning the role of Scripture and tradition, and the authority thereof, the church fathers are frequently appealed to by both sides to support their particular view. In this article, I want to take a look at a passage from Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures often used by Protestants to support sola Scriptura, and the Roman Catholic responses to it.
Here is the passage in question:
"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 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 demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures 4.17)
(An interesting thing to note is that the context of this lecture is where Cyril is teaching "On the Ten Points of Doctrine" in which he gives a summary of the most basic and essential truths of the Christian faith.)
Now, what is the response from Roman Catholic apologists? Here are several that I will quote here:
And consider this quote from Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, a favorite of the nouveau Protestant apologists [he then cites the passage] . . . How should we understand this? Catholic patristic scholars would point out that such language as Cyril uses here is consistent with his and the other Fathers’ high view of Scripture’s authority and with what is sometimes called its material sufficiency (more on that shortly). This language, while perhaps more rigorously biblical than some modern Catholics are used to, nonetheless conveys an accurate sense of Catholic teaching on the importance of Scripture. Even taken at face value, Cyril’s admonition poses no problem for the Catholic. But it does, ironically, for the Protestant. The proponent of sola scriptura is faced with a dilemma when he attempts to use Cyril’s quote. Option One: If Cyril was in fact teaching sola scriptura, Protestants have a big problem. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures are filled with his forceful teachings on the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the Mass as a sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the theology of sacraments (1:3), the intercession of the saints (23:9), holy orders (23:2), the importance of frequent Communion (23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:1-3; 3:10-12; 21:3-4), indeed a staggering array of specifically “Catholic” doctrines. These are the same Catholic doctrines that Protestants claim are not found in Scripture. So, if Cyril really held to the notion of sola scriptura, he certainly believed he had found those Catholic doctrines in Scripture. One would then have to posit that Cyril was badly mistaken in his exegesis of Scripture, but this tack, of course, leads nowhere for Protestants, for it would of necessity impugn Cyril’s exegetical credibility as well as his claim to find sola scriptura in Scripture. Option Two: Cyril did not teach sola scriptura; the Protestant understanding of this passage is incorrect. That means an attempt to hijack this quote to support sola scriptura is futile (if not dishonest), since it would require a hopelessly incorrect understanding of Cyril’s method of systematic theology, the doctrinal schema he sets forth in Catechetical Lectures, and his view of the authority of Scripture. Obviously, neither of these options is palatable to the Protestant apologist. Were there time and space to cycle through each of the patristic quotes proffered by Protestants arguing for sola scriptura, we could demonstrate in each case that the Fathers are being quoted out of context and without regard to the rest of their statements on the authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It will suffice for now, though, to remind Catholics that the Fathers did not teach sola scriptura, and no amount of clever “cut-and- paste” work by defenders of sola scriptura can demonstrate otherwise. (Patrick Madrid, Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy)
All that Mr. Madrid does here is simply give random citations from Cyril elsewhere which he thinks support distinctive Roman Catholic theology (we can deal with those issues another time), without actually dealing with the passage in question. He claims that the "Protestant understanding of the passage is incorrect" without providing any evidence for his claim.
Dave Armstrong in his article on this subject produces some quotes from Cyril which he thinks support Catholic views of Scripture and the church (and their respective authority). I will deal with two of them. In first passage, I put emphasis on parts that actually clear up Cyril's real understanding of Scripture and tradition/the church:
"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. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 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. 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." (Catechetical Lectures 5.12, emphasis mine)
Here is the next passage that Dave Armstrong cites (specifically in order to prove 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; from Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, three volumes, London: Dolman, 1846; Vol. I: 446)
I looked up this quote in Google Books to see if it was anywhere else cited but this is the only place I could find it. It is not contained in the official 38-volume set of the fathers from Eerdmans/Hendrickson Publishers. Whether or not Cyril actually wrote the above quote is thus up for debate.
In many of these responses (though not all of them), RC apologists tap dance around actually dealing with the quote itself, and instead jump around to other quotes from Cyril or they (as Dave Armstrong does) chant the usual of mantra that all that the quote is teaching is Scripture's material sufficiency.
Take a look at what Moody Bible Institute professor Jonathan J. Armstrong says in an essay contained in the book Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, edited by Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang:
"In the era that followed, after the New Testament canon was fixed, we find that the Fathers appealed to the canonical Scriptures in the same way that they once appealed to the rule of faith. Cyril of Jerusalem can say with confidence that no point of doctrine is to be accepted unless it can be proved from Scripture, and he even instructs his baptismal candidates not to receive his own words as authoritative unless their veracity can be demonstrated from the divine Scriptures." (Jonathan J. Armstrong, "From the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας to the κανὼν τῶν γραφῶν The Rule of Faith and the New Testament Canon" in Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, pgs. 45-46)
Here is what E.J. Yarnold says in his book on Cyril:
"Cyril subscribed to a form of scriptura sola doctrine, stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures: ‘let us not presume to speak of what is not in Scripture’ (Cat. 16.24). For where the divine and holy mysteries of the Creed are concerned, one must not teach casually without reference to the sacred Scriptures, or be led astray by persuasive and elaborate arguments. Do not simply take my word when I tell you these things, unless you are given proof for my teaching from holy Scripture. (Cat. 4.17)." (Edward Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem, pg. 56)
Analysis of the Quote:
"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 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 demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures 4.17)
No comments:
Post a Comment