Keep in mind many of the Fathers were Bishops. They certainly wouldn't subscribe to a doctrine that did away with their authority, would they? That would be ridiculous.

I wouldn't want people to think that the bishops were only trying to hold on to something they created for themselves.

(And I know you are well aware of this, bon).

yes, but even so, an argument in typical protestant fashion shifts ground multiple times within it's course. at one moment, they will argue for the authority of a church father in upholding scripture as the norma normans, and the next moment they will argue the heresy of the fathers in setting up their own authority as infallible bishops! can't have it both ways.

Does anyone know if the following is legit? They don't have St. John Chrysostom's writings on New Advent. Thanks for the help.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rule.htm


Gallegos destroys protestant's intellectual dishonesty.

All these fathers also have quotes about the necessity for church authority and apostolic succesion as well they hardly were advocating by the bible alone we can determine the entire faith as stated earlier some subsribed to the formal suffiecinecy of scripture this is held by some to the church till this day and was not contradicted at Trent which still allowed for it. This is another example of protestnat playing fast and loose with the church fathers without regard to context and the entire body and frame work of the fathers. THe Bible alone as protestnat see it negates the need for apostolic tradition and eccelsial authority but the fathers don't deny this they were not sola scripturist.

If so many Fathers advoated a material sufficiency view of Scripture, then wouldn't that de facto make the material sufficiency view of Scripture Catholic teaching (as opposed to this view "being allowed" to be held by individual Catholics)? If not, then don't we lay ourselves open to the critique that the modern day Catholic Church no longer believes as the early Church did?

Thanks,
Bobby

The problem is trying to determine from isolated quotes whether each of these fathers was actually promoting a material sufficiency or not. It is tough to tell, for as others have said, many of these fathers make extremely strong statements about tradition as well.

FJ

But the fact that these same Fathers made strong statements about Tradition as well is part of the view of the material sufficiency of Scripture itself. The material sufficiency of Scripture means that the Magesterium and Tradition both should be able to show the teachings of the Church present in the Scriptures, either implicitly or explicitly, does it not?

All doctrine is contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures.

The less Scripture you have, the less doctrine you have, and the doctrine you do have is suspect.

Did you get the owner of that site to come clean on where he got those quotes from?

No, I didn't follow-up with the owner. I think there are enough authentic quotes that show that the Fathers believed in a material sufficiency of Scriptures (which, to be clear, includes the need for a Church Magisterium). That being said, I've heard that the view of the material sufficiency of Scriptures is allowed to be believed by individual Catholics, but is not the official position of the Catholic Church. So my question is, if the majority of the Church Fathers believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture, then doesn't that in itself make the view of the material sufficiency of Scripture the official Catholic position? Or could the majority of the Church Fathers have been in error regarding this issue?

Thanks,
Bobby

A view held by the majority of the Church Fathers is, by definition, infallible.

The real question you need to answer is was that view really held by the majority of Church Fathers?

And, as a bonus question, why is it so important for you to know this?

Just a quick response (which I will follow up with later) I don't think a "majority position" is the definition of an infallible teaching, but a position that is held with unanimous consent. That is, a position that is held by some and at least not rejected by the rest, and then followed up with explicit teaching from the Magisterium.

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that "majority position" and "unanimous consent" would be very different criteria.

FJ

It's important to me because my Protestant friends paint a pretty compelling picture that the Church Fathers believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture. (Actually, they try to prove that they believed in sola Scriptura. I point out by counter quotes that show the need for a Magisterium and Tradition that what the Fathers believed in was thus the material sufficiency of Scripture, which is different from sola Scriptura.)

So, I was concerned that if this was the view of the Fathers, then why would this also not be the official teaching of the Catholic Church, as opposed to a teaching that's allowed to be held by individual Catholics. But alas, your comment above here reminds me that, yes, it was the view of the Church Fathers that "they" quote, but was this view either the view of the majority of the Church Fathers, or, and possibly more importantly, was this view the view of the unanimous consent of the Fathers? The answer to these two questions I'm unsure of at this point.

Thanks for the insight.

Christ is Risen!
Bobby

And my point to you, then, is the Church Fathers only believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired and revealed, and on that basis they attached a great importance to them. I don't ever recall a Father using a term like "material sufficiency". Ergo, that is a term invented to attempt to describe the overall theology of the Fathers as regards Scripture.

Is it the right term?

You are going to have to dedicate yourself to a long and exhaustive study of the Fathers if you want to have your own curiosity satisfied on this. You have seen the official pronouncements of the Church. The Magisterium does not use the term "material sufficiency". Theologians and apologists use the term, and they are not part of the Magisterium. In that regard, I see the whole argument as moot.

Prots are arguing in favor of sola Scriptura, which Catholics reject as a doctrine of men. Employing terms like formal and material sufficiency only obscures the real argument: no Father rejects Tradition or the authority of the Magisterium. That is the only place where your answer to your Prot buds should lie, and you should not allow them to abscure your answer with novelties like formal and material sufficiency.

Well, I am confused by your premise because I was always taught that "Material Sufficency" is actually the preferred position of the Church and that a dual source (or the idea that there are things in Tradition that are not at all alluded to in Scripture) was the minority or tolerated position.

What I was trying to get at in my previous posts is that it is unclear as to what each ECF actually meant or intended by their statements... There are different theories of Material Sufficiency. One states that everything "necessary for conversion" is contained in Scripture. Another that everything "necessary for conversion and salvation" is contained in Scripture with qualifiers that perhaps not all of Tradition necessary for the believer to know. Finally, that everything given to the Church by Tradition is also at least alluded to (implicitly) in Scripture. Even dual source theorists do not deny that everything can be at least implicitly in Scripture but that this still requires a teaching authority to make clear that which is only implicit. Thus, they kind of sit on the fence and SAY they aren't believers in material sufficiency, but really their position is identical to it.

In addition, I believe Trent provided guidance that indicated a material sufficiency of Scripture, but I will let the expert researchers here verify that one.

Thus, it is difficult to take an isolated quote from an ECF and try to ascertain what position they actually had. Even St. John tells us that "Christ did many other things and taught many other things, but THESE are contain so you may believe." This seems to indicate that The Scriptures do not require a belief in MS, but it certainly doesn't rule it out since John's Gospel is not the only book in the Bible.

I will tell you this... I have been studying Catholic theology (and debating it) for about 14 years, and have yet to find something that isn't at least implicitly found in Scripture.

FJ

I fail to see how anyone, reading the ECF, can come to the conclusion that they held protestant beliefs. The only way to do this is to ignore a huge portion of what they wrote...

That is why Bobby has a long road of hard studying ahead of him.

One can be obedient to the Church and not do hardly any studying at all --the same way a child is obedient to their parents.

But if one wishes to be an apologist --even an amateur one like most of us-- for the Church, then one must devote pretty well the rest of their life to studying the teachings of the Church.

Remember, we are dealing with divine truths here. Each and every one of them is an inexhaustable mine.

If only it were just that simple. Unfortunately, it's not.

Why not?