“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”[1]

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”[2]

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”[3]

One of the pillars of Protestantism is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine, which affirms that the Bible and the Bible alone, under the free interpretation of each believer, is the sole rule of faith and morals, has been responsible for the continual and exponentially multiplying Protestant divisions, each claiming to be governed exclusively by the Bible, yet unable to reach agreement on the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

The early Church was not scriptura-sola. She recognized the great authority of Scripture (the supreme norm of faith), but never claimed that everything, absolutely everything pertaining to doctrine had to be contained in the Scriptures, and still less that Scripture was a warrant for refusing to submit to the authority of the Church and her dogmatic pronouncements.

Nevertheless, Protestantism has constructed a kind of almost mythological alternative history in which it is claimed that the early Church did indeed profess Sola Scriptura. One commonly sees Protestant authors citing texts from the Fathers in which they speak of the authority of the Scriptures, believing that this implies a rejection of Sacred Tradition. A more careful analysis of their writings will reveal that precisely the opposite is the case.

Some Protestant Objections

One example of the objections Protestants use to argue that Sola Scriptura was a doctrine held by the early Church I have taken from the site ChristianAnswers.net, in the article “What did the early Church believe about the authority of the Holy Scriptures?” They write:

“The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century declared that God’s Revelation was not contained in the Scriptures alone. It declared that it is contained partly in Sacred Scripture and partly in Tradition; therefore, materially the Scriptures were not sufficient.

This was the position of the Roman Catholic Church for several centuries after the Council of Trent.”[4]

This site claims that it was as a result of the Council of Trent (sixteenth century) that the Catholic Church adopted the position that not everything is contained in the Scriptures. It would suffice to note that nearly a millennium earlier, the Second Council of Nicaea had decreed: “If anyone rejects every ecclesiastical Tradition, whether written or unwritten, let him be anathema.” However, it is appropriate to cite patristic texts of greater antiquity in order to contrast those claims.

The article further states:

“The point of view promoted by the Council of Trent was in direct contradiction with what the early Church believed and practiced. The early Church always upheld the principle of “Sola Scriptura.” It held that all doctrines should be subjected to the test of Scripture, and if a doctrine failed to pass that test, it should be rejected.”

This comment makes clear the Protestant position, which claims that the early Church professed and believed in Sola Scriptura.

What Did the Early Church Believe?

Ignatius of Antioch (? — 107 A.D.)

In the following text the celebrated bishop of Antioch, disciple of Peter and Paul, rejects the scriptura-sola position:

“I therefore did what belonged to me, as a man devoted to unity. But where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. Now the Lord forgives all men when they repent, if in repenting they return to the unity of God and to the council of the bishop. I have faith in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall free you from every bond; and I exhort you to do nothing out of a spirit of faction, but according to the teaching of Christ. For I heard some saying: If I do not find it in the foundational (ancient) Scriptures, I do not believe it is in the Gospel. And when I said to them: It is written, they answered me: That remains to be proved. But to me, my foundational Scripture is Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter of his cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him; in which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.”[5]

Papias of Hierapolis (69 — 150 A.D.)

His testimony is important because, according to Saint Irenaeus, he was a disciple of Saint John and a friend of Saint Polycarp. As one of the Apostolic Fathers, his writings are of the greatest importance for understanding primitive Christianity.

Remarkably, Saint Papias leaves us a testimony not only of not being scriptura-sola, but of having given preference to oral tradition.

“Along with my interpretations, I shall not hesitate to add whatever I carefully learned and remembered from the elders, for I am sure of its truthfulness. Unlike the majority, I did not take pleasure in those who said much, but in those who teach the truth; not in those who recite the commandments of others, but in those who repeated the commandments given by the Lord. And whenever someone came who had been a follower of the elders, I would ask him about their words: what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying. For I did not think that the information from books could help me as much as the word of a living, surviving voice.”[6]

Irenaeus of Lyons (130 — 202 A.D.)

No less important is the testimony of Saint Irenaeus — bishop, martyr, and disciple of Saint Polycarp. In his celebrated treatise Against Heresies he combats the heresies of his time, in particular those of the Gnostics, and in his writings there is ample evidence to rule out any suggestion that he was an advocate of Sola Scriptura.

The exposition on the importance of Tradition in Saint Irenaeus is so clear that Protestants have attempted to dilute it. One example is found in the following comment from the website already cited:

“Both teachers [referring to Tertullian and Saint Irenaeus] furnish the real doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was preached in the Churches. From that we can clearly see that all doctrine was derived from the Scriptures. There is no doctrine to which they refer as apostolic tradition that was not well grounded in the Scriptures.”

However, a careful study of the works of Saint Irenaeus undermines this claim. Saint Irenaeus explains how the Church combats heretics by means of Tradition, safeguarded through apostolic succession. He even affirms that, having the Scriptures, the truth cannot be discovered in them if one does not know the Tradition. He further objects that heretics cannot prove they were instituted by the Apostles, and that in rejecting Tradition they end up contradicting not only Tradition but the Scriptures as well.

“For when they use the Scriptures to argue, they turn them into the prosecutor of the Scriptures themselves, accusing them either of not saying things rightly or of having no authority, and of narrating things in various ways: the truth cannot be discovered in them by one who does not know the Tradition. For, they say, the truth was not transmitted through them but by living voice, for which reason Paul would have said: “We speak wisdom among the perfect, a wisdom which is not of this world.” And each one of them claims that this wisdom is the one he himself has found — that is to say, a fiction — so that the truth would worthily be found at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, and finally in Basilides, or in whoever disputes against him, who could say nothing salvific. For each of these men is so perverted that he is not ashamed to preach himself, depraving the Rule of Truth.

When we challenge them with the Tradition which the Church guards from the Apostles through the succession of the presbyters, they set themselves against Tradition, saying that they have not only presbyters but even Apostles wiser than them, who have found the sincere truth: for the Apostles “would have mingled what belongs to the Law with the words of the Saviour”; and not only the Apostles, but “the Lord himself would have preached things that came at times from the Demiurge, at times from the Intermediary, at times from the Supreme Power”; whereas they themselves would know “the hidden mystery”, indubitable, uncontaminated and sincere: this is nothing else than to blaspheme against their Creator. And they end up agreeing neither with Tradition nor with the Scriptures.”[7]

Saint Irenaeus then affirms that the doctrinal unity existing among the Churches is due not only to the Scriptures but to the apostolic succession, which guarantees orthodoxy and safeguards Tradition without “curtailing” it.

“As we have said before, the Church received this preaching and this faith, and, spread throughout the whole earth, she guards it with care as if she dwelt in a single household. She preserves one same faith, as if she had but one soul and one heart, and she preaches, teaches, and hands it down with one same voice, as if she possessed but one mouth. The languages of the world are indeed diverse, according to the diverse regions, but the force of the Tradition is one and the same. The churches of Germany do not believe differently, nor do they hand down a doctrine different from that preached by those of Iberia or of the Celts, or those of the East, as those of Egypt or Libya, nor likewise the churches established in the centre of the world; but, just as the sun, which is a creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the light, which is the preaching of the truth, shines everywhere and enlightens all human beings who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth. And neither does he who excels in eloquence among the rulers of the Church preach things different from these — for no disciple is above his Master —, nor does the weakest in speech curtail the Tradition: the faith being one and the same, neither does he who can say much about it add to it, nor does he who can say less diminish it.”[8]

He states categorically that the truth must be sought in the Church, since the Apostles deposited it there and it is maintained in apostolic Tradition.

“Since, then, the testimonies are so many, it is no longer necessary to seek among others the truth which it is so easy to receive from the Church, since the Apostles deposited in her, as in a rich storehouse, everything pertaining to the truth, so that “all who wish may draw from her the water of life.” This is the entrance to life. “All the others are thieves and robbers.” For this reason it is necessary to avoid them, and instead to love with all affection whatever belongs to the Church and to maintain the Tradition of the truth.

Then, if any divergence should be found even in some minimal matter, would it not be fitting to turn our eyes to the most ancient Churches, in which the Apostles lived, in order to take from them the doctrine to resolve the question — which is clearer and surer? Even if the Apostles had not left us their writings, would it not have been necessary to follow the order of the Tradition which they bequeathed to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?”[9]

The Protestant article cited also writes:

“For Irenaeus, with all certainty, the doctrine of the Church is never mere tradition. On the contrary, the notion that any truth might be transmitted exclusively vivâ voce (orally) corresponds to the line of thinking of the Gnostics.”

Saint Irenaeus does not claim to limit the transmission of the Gospel to oral tradition, but neither does he limit it to written transmission. What the saint believed nearly two millennia ago is precisely what a Catholic believes today — not limiting the transmission of Revelation to either Scripture or Tradition alone. Nevertheless, his notable comment points out that barbarian peoples, without having had written means of transmission, received the Gospel “without paper or ink”, and can distinguish heretical doctrine from orthodox.

“Many barbarian peoples give their assent to this order, and believe in Christ, without paper or ink; in their heart they have salvation written by the Holy Spirit, and they carefully guard the old Tradition, believing in one God, Demiurge of heaven and earth and of all that is found in them, and in Jesus Christ his Son, who, moved by his most eminent love for the work he fashioned, submitted to be conceived of a Virgin, uniting in himself man and God. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, rose again, and was received into the light. He will come again in glory as Saviour of all who are saved and as Judge of those who are judged, to send into eternal fire those who disfigure his truth and despise his Father and his coming.

Those who without letters have believed this faith are barbarians as regards our manner of speech; but as regards their judgment, customs, and way of life, they are through faith most wise, and they please God, living in all justice, chastity, and wisdom.

If anyone should dare to preach to them what the heretics have invented, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once shut their ears and flee far away, not daring even to listen to the blasphemous preaching. Thus, owing to the ancient apostolic Tradition, it does not even enter their mind to admit such monstrous reasonings. The fact is that among them (the heretics) there is found neither church nor established doctrine.”[10]

For Saint Irenaeus, the proof that this Tradition has been preserved in the Church is that one can enumerate those who have been constituted as bishops and successors of the Apostles down to his own time.

“For all who wish to see the truth, the Tradition of the Apostles has been made manifest to the world in the whole Church, and we can enumerate those who in the Church were constituted bishops and successors of the Apostles down to our own day, who neither taught nor knew the things these men rave about. For if the Apostles had known “hidden mysteries” from above, they would have taught them in secret to the perfect, and above all they would have entrusted them to those to whom they were committing the Churches themselves. For they wished those whom they left as successors to be in all things “perfect and blameless”, so as to hand over to them the magisterium in their own place: if they acted rightly, great benefit would follow; but if they should fall, the greatest calamity.”[11]

And since in his treatise he considers it too lengthy to enumerate the succession of all the Churches, he limits himself to enumerating the apostolic succession of the Church of Rome, which he calls “the most ancient”. He thus enumerates the Church of Rome, founded by Peter and Paul.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate the successions of all the Churches in this volume, we shall indicate above all those of the most ancient and universally known, that of the Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul — the Church which from the Apostles preserves the Tradition and the faith announced to men through the successors of the Apostles who reach down to us. Thus we confound all those who, in one way or another, whether by self-pleasing or by vainglory or by blindness or by a false opinion, accumulate false knowledge. For it is necessary that every Church be in harmony with this Church, whose foundation is the most assured — I mean the faithful of every place —, because in her all who are everywhere have preserved the apostolic Tradition.”[12]

Later, in the fifth book of the same work, referring to heretics, he writes:

“For all these came much later than the bishops to whom the Apostles entrusted the Churches; and this we have set forth with all care in the third book. All the aforesaid heretics therefore need, because of their blindness regarding the truth, to walk by one byway after another, and for this reason the footprints of their doctrine are scattered in a discordant and inconsistent way. But the path of those who belong to the Church goes around the whole world, for it possesses the firm Tradition that comes from the Apostles, and beholding it, it offers us one and the same faith of all….”[13]

Clement of Alexandria (150 — 215 A.D.)

Saint Clement emphasises the importance of preserving Tradition so that it may not be lost:

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy Apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escaping the blessed tradition.”[14]

“The dogmas taught by the remarkable sects will be adduced; and to these will be opposed all that ought to be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge, which, as we proceed, drawing from the Scriptures themselves, will set before us the true gnosis, proceeding from the renowned and venerable canon of the tradition… so as to have our ears ready for the reception of the tradition of true knowledge; the soil being previously cleared of the thorns and of every weed by the husbandman, in order to the planting of the vine.”[15]

Hippolytus of Rome (? — 235 A.D.)

Saint Hippolytus emphasises the importance of preserving Tradition as a safeguard against error, in his work entitled The Apostolic Tradition:

“Now we pass from the charity which God has shown to all the saints, to the essentials of the tradition which befits the churches, so that those who have been well instructed may keep the tradition which has been maintained until now, according to the exposition we make of it, and, by understanding it, may be strengthened — on account of the fall or error which has recently occurred through ignorance, or because of the ignorant.”[16]

In the third part of this same work he advises:

“I counsel the wise to observe this. For if all give ear to the Apostolic Tradition and keep it, no heretic will lead them into error.”[17]

Origen (185 — 254 A.D.)

Origen maintains the same position as Saint Irenaeus, holding that the teaching of the Church has been safeguarded by apostolic succession. He likewise affirms the importance of what he calls “the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” and categorically maintains that nothing is to be accepted as truth except that which does not differ in any way from the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition:

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down, in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”[18]

It is no surprise that Origen, in support of certain doctrines, appeals not only to Scripture but to the Tradition of the Church. He defends the baptism of infants in precisely this way, arguing that it is a tradition received from the Apostles.

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew very well that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”[19]

Not only does Origen reject whatever differs from the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition; he also affirms that those who differ from it and become heretics cannot be saved. He proclaims that outside the Church there is no salvation: “Extra hanc domum, id est Ecclesiam, nemo salvatur”[20]. Thus, for this ecclesiastical writer, the doctrines and laws that Christ brought to humanity are found only in the Church. He therefore maintains that there can be no faith outside this Church. The faith of heretics is not fides but an arbitrary credulitas.[21]

Tertullian (160 — 220 A.D.)

The pre-Montanist vision of Tertullian clearly defines that heretics cannot claim to possess a legitimate Church unless they can demonstrate that their origin descends from the Churches founded by the Apostles, which preserve the true Tradition — that is, apostolic succession.

It would be absurd to suppose that he was a scriptura-sola advocate when he even denied heretics the right to appeal to the Scriptures, since the Scriptures belong to the Church:

“Moreover, if any of these heresies are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their Churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that their first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of apostolic men — a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the Apostles.

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by Apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them?”[22]

Like other Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, Tertullian did not consider it valid for anyone, starting solely from Scripture, to attempt to impose his personal interpretation over that of the Church. Confronted with the fact that heretics typically clothe their doctrines in an amalgam of biblical texts, he rejects them outright, writing:

“They put forward the Scriptures, and by this audacity of theirs they at once impress some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, catch the weak, and leave those in between full of scruples. We therefore cut them short by adopting this position, the best one: not to admit them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If these are their resources, in order that they may be able to use them, it must first be determined to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, so that no one may be admitted to them who has no title at all to them. I might be thought to have introduced this position out of distrust, or from a desire of entering on the question in some other way, were there not reasons — first of all, this: that our faith owes obedience to the Apostle, who forbids entering into discussions, lending our ears to novel words, and visiting a heretic after one correction…”[23]

Another important point is that Tertullian makes numerous references to the Rule of Faith (which was an oral tradition maintained by the Church that summarised the principal doctrines of the Christian faith). This Rule made it possible to identify when a heretic was twisting the Scriptures to support his heretical doctrines.

“If things are such that the truth is adjudged to us — to all who walk by that rule which the Churches have handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God —, then the principle of our resolution stands firm, which establishes that heretics are not to be admitted to enter a challenge concerning the Scriptures, for without the Scriptures we prove that they have nothing to do with them.”[24]

He immediately criticises the heretics’ use of Scripture, in which they accept certain portions, or do not accept them entire, but distort them to support their positions.

“This heresy does not receive certain Scriptures; and if it receives some, it does not receive them entire, but changes them, contriving interpretations contrary to the Christian faith. A falsifying intelligence is as much opposed to the truth as a corrupting pen. Their vain conjectures necessarily refuse to acknowledge those passages by which they are refuted; they rely on those which they have fraudulently retouched and on those they have chosen for their ambiguity.”[25]

For Tertullian, knowing the true sense of Scripture requires recourse to the school of Christ — that is, to the Apostles — and therefore only in the apostolic Churches can the correct interpretation of the Scriptures be found.

“So then, proceeding from what has gone before, we direct this prescription: if the Lord Jesus sent the Apostles to preach, no other preachers are to be admitted than those whom Christ instituted, because no one knows the Father except the Son and him to whom the Son has revealed him, nor does it appear that the Son revealed himself to any but the Apostles, whom he sent to preach — that is, to preach what he had revealed to them.

Now, what they preached — that is, what Christ revealed to them — here too we shall deduce this prescription: it must be proved in no other way than through the same churches which the Apostles founded, preaching to them themselves, whether by living voice, as they say, or afterwards by letters.

If this is so, it is likewise certain that all doctrine which agrees with the doctrine of those apostolic churches, the matrices and sources of the faith, must be reckoned true, for it undoubtedly holds what the Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; whereas all doctrine that savours of anything contrary to the truth of the churches and of the Apostles of Christ and of God must be prejudged as proceeding from falsehood.

It remains, then, to be demonstrated whether this doctrine of ours, whose rule we have formulated above, proceeds from the tradition of the Apostles, and whether, by that very fact, the others proceed from falsehood.

We are in communion with the apostolic churches — something which no contrary doctrine can claim: this is the proof of the truth.”[26]

“A treatise on this matter will not be wholly useless, for instructing both those who are still in a stage of formation and those who, content with their simple faith, do not investigate the foundations of the tradition, and, owing to their ignorance, possess a faith that is at the mercy of all temptations.”[27]

Cyprian of Carthage (200 — 258 A.D.)

Saint Cyprian likewise was not scriptura-sola; on the contrary, he commands with all diligence the keeping of divine tradition and apostolic practices:

“With all diligence we must keep the divine tradition and the apostolic practices, and hold to what is done among us, which is what is done in almost all the provinces of the world…”[28]

He also rejects anyone claiming authority in the Church without apostolic succession, which he calls a contempt for evangelical tradition, since such a one arose on his own account.

“The Church is one, and as she is one, one cannot be at once within and without the Church. For if the Church is with the doctrine of the (heretic) Novatian, then she is against (Pope) Cornelius. But if the Church is with Cornelius, who succeeded in his office the bishop (of Rome) Fabian by lawful ordination, and to whom the Lord, besides the honour of the priesthood, granted also the honour of martyrdom, then Novatian is outside the Church; nor can he even be reckoned a bishop, since he succeeded no one and, despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For we know that he who has not been ordained in the Church does not belong to her in any way.”[29]

Saint Cyprian is frequently cited by Protestants on account of his conflict with Pope Stephen, in which he stubbornly maintained his position of rebaptising heretics. While his case could be cited as an example of a bishop who at a given moment resisted the authority of the Bishop of Rome, there is no basis whatever for insinuating that Saint Cyprian was scriptura-sola. In fact, his treatise On the Unity of the Church, written approximately in 251, combats the schism of Novatian and stands as an exceptional exponent of Catholic doctrine — its unity, universality, and exclusivity. His vision of the Church as a visible organism is radically opposed to the Protestant vision of an invisible Church (as even Protestant historians such as Philip Schaff acknowledge), in which each person, under the pretext of being guided by the Bible alone, separates from the Church and produces schisms and divisions.

In the same work (c. 12) he compares the Church to Noah’s Ark: “No one was saved outside Noah’s Ark; the same is true of the Church”, and warns against heretics who, abandoning the Church, found their own religious groups: “They deceive themselves by misinterpreting the words of the Lord: ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’ This passage cannot be correctly understood without reference to its context. Those who quote only the last words, omitting the rest, corrupt the Gospel.”

“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying: ‘I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…’ And although after his resurrection he confers an equal power on all the Apostles and says: ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained’, nevertheless, in order to manifest unity, he established one chair, and by his authority disposed that the origin of that unity should begin from one. Certainly the rest of the Apostles were the same as Peter, endowed with a like partnership of honour and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity. The primacy is given to Peter, that it might be shown that the Church of Christ is one… He who holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the faith?… He who opposes and resists the Church, can he be confident that he is within the Church?... The episcopate is one, a part of which is held by each one in solidum. The Church likewise is one, which extends with her prodigious fecundity into the multitude, just as the rays of the sun are many, but the sun is one; and the branches of a tree are many, but one is the trunk grounded in its firm root; and when many streams flow from one spring, although their number is multiplied by the abundance of water, the unity of their origin is preserved. Separate a ray from the body of the sun: its unity does not admit a division of light; break a branch from the tree: the broken branch will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its spring, and it will dry up. So also the Church, illuminated with the light of the Lord, extends her rays over the whole world; yet it is one light which is diffused everywhere, without the unity of the body being separated; with her fecundity and vigour she extends her branches over all the earth, she spreads abroad her abundant streams, yet there is one head, one origin, and one mother, abundant in the fruits of fecundity. Of her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.”[30]

Eusebius of Caesarea (263 — 340 A.D.)

Recognized as the greatest historian of the early Church, he writes:

“Among those who flourished in the Church at this time were Hegesippus, whom we have already met, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, Pinytus bishop of Crete, Philip, Apollinaris, Melito, Musanus, Modestus, and, above all, Irenaeus. Their orthodoxy and their zeal for the Apostolic Tradition have come down to us in written form.”[31]

Eusebius gives us a significant detail when he narrates the conflict between Pope Saint Stephen and Saint Cyprian of Carthage. The Pope opposed the rebaptism of heretics, while Saint Cyprian had them rebaptised. The Pope wrote a letter stating that “no innovation should be made contrary to what has been handed down”[32]. This event is noteworthy because Eusebius himself understands that Saint Cyprian was introducing a novelty contrary to Tradition.

“But Cyprian, pastor of the see of Carthage, was the first of his time to insist that they be readmitted only after purification by baptism. Stephen, on the other hand, considered it wrong to make any innovation contrary to the tradition established from the beginning, and was greatly displeased.”[33]

Athanasius of Alexandria (295 — 373 A.D.)

The following letter is not the exclusive work of Saint Athanasius but of ninety bishops of Egypt and Libya gathered in synod at Alexandria in 369, which makes it all the more significant as a testimony to how important and authoritative the Ecumenical Councils were for the Church:

“But the words of the Lord which came through the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea abide for ever.”[34]

In his letter in defense of the decrees of the Council of Nicaea (De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi), he asks the Arians to prove from what master or tradition they derived their opinions about the creation of the Word — which would be absurd unless he credited the importance of Tradition. The same is apparent when he affirms that the decrees of Nicaea maintain the same doctrine they have received through Tradition.

“Let them tell us from what teacher, or from what tradition, they derived these notions concerning the Saviour.”[35]

“For what the Fathers have delivered, this is truly the doctrine, and this is truly the token of doctors, who confess the same with each other, and neither disagree with the Fathers, nor war with each other. But they who are not such are to be called not true teachers but evil.”[36]

“But the sectaries, who have fallen outside the teaching of the Church, have made shipwreck concerning the faith.”[37]

“…from the beginning, the genuine tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.”[38]

“But after him, and along with him, are all the inventors of impious heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and, receiving them as the tradition of men, they err, because they do not rightly know them, nor their power.”[39]

The letter to Epictetus (Epistula ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi) enjoyed great renown and was widely cited in the Christological controversies, to the point that the Council of Chalcedon adopted it as the best expression of its convictions[40]. In it, although Saint Athanasius was convinced that Trinitarian doctrine had its foundation in Scripture, he replies that in order to refute heretics it suffices to show them that what they profess differs from the teaching of the Church and of the Fathers.

“It is sufficient, in answer to such things, to say only this: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor what the Fathers held. But in order that the inventors of evil things may not make of our complete silence a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture.”[41]

Augustine of Hippo (354 — 430 A.D.)

Protestants typically present Saint Augustine as an advocate of Sola Scriptura; however, the evidence points to precisely the opposite.

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”[42]

The text quoted below is particularly revealing, because Saint Augustine teaches that the Church must preserve everything that comes down through Tradition, even if it is not written. This was more than a millennium before Trent — when, according to the Protestant article cited, the Catholic Church supposedly began to profess this.

“…Everything that we observe by tradition, even though it is not found written; everything that the Church observes throughout the whole world, is understood to be kept by recommendation or precept of the Apostles or of the plenary Councils, whose authority is indisputable in the Church. For example, the Lord’s passion, his resurrection, his ascension into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit from heaven are celebrated every year. The same may be said of any other similar practice observed by the whole universal Church.”[43]

In On Baptism, Against the Donatists, he writes, commenting on the Pope’s position regarding the rebaptism of converts:

“The Apostles, in fact, gave no instructions on this point; but the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.”[44]

For Saint Augustine, the authority of Councils and of the Bishop of Rome is indisputable. It was he who, in the Pelagian controversy, declared the matter closed when Pope Innocent issued an edict approving the Councils of Carthage and Milevis.

“Those who are not in Catholic communion and yet glory in the Christian name find themselves compelled to take issue with believers; they dare to deceive the unlearned as though they were acting by reason, whereas the Lord came precisely to bring this medicine of faith, imposed upon the peoples. But heretics are compelled to do this, as I have said, because they sense that they would be summarily dismissed if they compared their authority with that of the Catholic Church.

They therefore try to overcome the unshakeable authority of the Church with the name and promise of reason. This rashness is common to all heretics. But that most clement emperor of the faith has furnished us too with a magnificent array of invincible reason, by means of select men, both godly and learned and truly spiritual. And at the same time he has fortified the Church with the citadel of authority by means of famous Councils of all peoples and nations, and by the very Apostolic Sees themselves.”[45]

In an epistle written against the Manicheans (Contra Epistolam Manichaei quam vocant Fundamenti), he rejects the objections they raised from Scripture against the Catholic Church. He replies that he believes in the Scriptures precisely because of the Church’s authority, and that if they were even to find in the Scriptures a testimony against her, all they would achieve is to make him cease to believe both in the Catholic Church and in the Scriptures.

“In the Catholic Church — not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which few spiritual men attain in this life so as to know it, in the smallest part indeed, because they are men, yet without doubt (since the rest of the multitude derive all their security not from acuteness of intellect but from simplicity of faith) — even setting aside that sincere and genuine wisdom which, in your opinion, is not found in the Catholic Church, many other reasons keep me in her bosom: the consent of peoples and nations; her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, confirmed by antiquity; the succession of bishops from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, entrusted the feeding of his sheep, down to the episcopate of today; and finally, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, this Church alone has obtained…. These bonds of the Christian name — so many, so great, and most sweet — keep the believer in the bosom of the Catholic Church, even though the truth, because of the slowness of our mind and the unworthiness of our life, does not yet show itself…

If you encounter someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, how would you answer if he tells you he does not believe? For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those in whose authority I have consented to believe the Gospel tell me not to believe Mani, what else can I do but comply? Choose, then. If you say: believe the Catholics — their counsel is that I should place no faith in what you say; and so, believing them, I am kept from believing you. If you say: do not believe the Catholics — then you cannot rightly use the Gospel to bring me to faith in Mani, for it was by the authority of the Catholics that I believed the Gospel in the first place. Again, if you say: you were right to believe the Catholics when they told you to believe the Gospel, but wrong to believe their condemnations of Mani — do you think me so foolish as to believe you in what you choose, and not in what you do not choose, without any reason? And so it is more just and safe that, having placed my faith in the Catholics in the first place, I should not go over to you — until, instead of urging me to believe you, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, therefore, you must set aside the Gospel. If you retain the Gospel, I shall abide by those who commanded me to believe the Gospel; and in obedience to them I shall not believe you at all. But if by chance you succeed in finding in the Gospel an irrefutable testimony to the apostolate of Mani, you would weaken my confidence in the authority of the Catholics who tell me not to believe you; and the effect of this will be that I shall no longer believe the Gospel either, since it was through the Catholics that I received my faith in it — and so whatever you bring from the Gospel will carry no more weight with me. So if you have no clear proof of Mani’s apostolate from the Gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you find some passage clearly in favor of Mani, I shall believe neither them nor you: not them, because they lied to me about Mani; not you, because you quote me that very Gospel in which I believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the Gospel; believing it, I find in it nothing that makes me believe you.”[46]

John Chrysostom (347 — 407 A.D.)

He leaves us an excellent testimony of how the Church, more than 1,600 years ago, interpreted 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in exactly the same way Catholics do today — as a biblical rejection of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle. 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.”[47]

Basil the Great (330 — 379 A.D.)

He affirms that the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church have been received both through oral and through written means, and he rejects the idea of abandoning unwritten customs.

“We shall now investigate in common the notions concerning the Spirit, as well as those collected by us from Scripture, and those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.”[48]

“The aim of the attack is the faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of sound doctrine is to shake down the foundations of the faith of Christ, by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like debtors — of course, debtors in good faith — they demand written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.”[49]

“In one Spirit, he says, ‘we were all baptized into one body.’ And in harmony with this are the passages: ‘they shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit’ and ‘he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.’ But no one on this account would be justified in calling that baptism a perfect baptism in which only the name of the Holy Spirit was invoked. For the tradition that has been given to us by grace must remain for ever inviolable.”[50]

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery… both of these have the same force in relation to true religion. No one will contradict any of these points, at any rate no one who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the grounds 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.”[51]

“It would take too long to enumerate the unwritten mysteries of the Church… while unwritten traditions are many, and their contribution to the mystery of godliness is so important…”[52]

“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ is without written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. ‘I praise you’, says [Paul], ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you’; and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle.’ One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which was ordained from the beginning, firmly rooted in the churches, delivered to their successors… If, as in a Court of Law, we had lost the documentary evidence, we are able to bring before you a great number of witnesses.”[53]

Epiphanius of Salamis (315 — 403 A.D.)

“It is necessary also to make use of Tradition, for not everything can be found in Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles left some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.”[54]

Gregory of Nyssa (331 — 394 A.D.)

He is frequently cited by Protestants as a faithful defender of Sola Scriptura, on account of texts such as this:

“We are not permitted to affirm whatever we please. Holy Scripture is for us the canon and the rule of every doctrine. We approve only what may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”[55]

In these texts Saint Gregory speaks of the material sufficiency of the Scriptures — which is distinct from the Protestant position, in which Scripture is the material principle and private judgment its formal principle. A complete analysis of the saint’s thought reveals that he has no intention of excluding apostolic Tradition; hence he maintains that what must be received as truth is that which is received “delivered by the Church with the protection of all of Scripture”.

Saint Cyril also proclaims the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth; for him the separation of Christians into sects is not lawful, and he calls any group that separates from the Church “abominable”.

“If our reasoning is not adequate to the problem, we must hold fast and immovably to the tradition that has come down to us from the Fathers by succession.”[56]

Cyril of Jerusalem (315 — 386 A.D.)

He is frequently cited by Protestants as an example of a Church Father who was scriptura-sola, on the basis of the following texts.

“Keep always this sign in your mind, for all this is being announced to you in summary; and if God permits, we shall explain it all more fully, according to our strength, demonstrating it from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, nothing must be handed down without the Sacred Scriptures, nor must merely probable things, supported by arguments built of artful words, be rashly adduced. And do not think that I shall proceed in that way; rather, I shall prove from the Scriptures what I announce to you. For this faith, to which we owe our salvation, receives its strength not from commentaries and disputes, but from demonstration by means of Sacred Scripture.”[57]

“In learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee 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 hear the things which have been delivered to you.”[58]

“But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly [Acts 19:41]), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the article, ‘And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wert regenerate.

And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it [Eph 5:25], and all the rest), and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all (Gal 4:26); which before was barren, but now has many children.”

Spread abroad without boundaries through the endurance of the martyrs

The former being rejected, in this second, that is, the Catholic Church, as St. Paul saith, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues (1 Cor 12:28), and every sort of virtue, I mean wisdom and understanding, temperance and justice, mercy and loving-kindness, and invincible patience in persecutions. She, with weapons of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honour and dishonour (2 Cor 6:7-8), even among her persecutors, won her crowns of victory over all manner of afflictions. And now, in time of peace, she receives from kings and those in power, and persons of every race and condition, the honour which is her due. And while the dominion of the rulers of peoples distributed throughout various places has fixed boundaries, only the holy Catholic Church possesses a dominion without frontiers throughout the whole world. For, as it is written, God has established peace within her borders (Ps 147:14). But if I wished to say everything on this subject, I would need a discourse of many hours.”[59]

For Saint Cyril, all Catholic doctrines were contained in Scripture both explicitly and implicitly (it is worth recalling again that the material sufficiency of the Scriptures is distinct from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura). He was a great defender of Trinitarian doctrine; he believed that through baptism we become sharers in the sacrifice of Christ, his death and resurrection; that baptism forgives sins and is necessary for salvation. He also explains transubstantiation with luminous clarity: “What seems bread is not bread, though it is such in taste, but the Body of Christ; and what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ”[60]. He likewise anticipates by more than a millennium the Protestant heresy that denies the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, calling it a spiritual and unbloody sacrifice, offered for all those in need, including the departed[61].

Other Protestant Objections

Another argument Protestants use to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura I have taken from the same article[62]:

“It is true that the early Church also held the concept of tradition in reference to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was frequently believed that such practices had been inherited from the Apostles, even when they could not necessarily be validated by Scripture. This practice, however, did not involve the doctrine of faith, and was frequently contradictory among different segments of the Church.

One example of this is found in the early second century in the controversy over when to celebrate the Resurrection. Some Eastern churches celebrated it on days different from those of the West, but each claimed that its particular practice had been inherited directly from the Apostles. This actually created a conflict between the Bishop of Rome, who demanded that the Eastern bishops submit to the practice of the West, and they refused, firmly believing they were fulfilling the apostolic tradition.”

However, an analysis of the history and patristic texts demonstrates that it is not true that the Tradition upheld by the early Church was limited exclusively to ecclesiastical practices. Papias makes no exception regarding what he learned through oral teachings. Irenaeus speaks of how the truth cannot be found in the Scriptures if the Tradition is unknown, and how they used this Tradition to attack heresies — it would make little sense to suppose that heretical teachings could be combated with mere ecclesiastical customs and practices. Origen speaks of the teaching of the Church transmitted by the Apostles through apostolic tradition, which here too seems not to be limited to questions of mere ecclesiastical discipline. Saint Basil the Great speaks of “the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church” through Tradition. Clement of Alexandria speaks of it as the blessed doctrine derived directly from the Apostles; and Saint Augustine includes in Tradition what is set forth by the Councils.

On the other hand, the conflict mentioned — the Paschal controversy — shows how firmly the early Christians treasured the Tradition received from the Apostles, to the point that a schism nearly occurred over a liturgical, not a dogmatic, question. On this the historian José Orlandis writes:

“In the second century the Roman Church saw two questions arise that were of a very different order, but each of which had its own bearing on her life: the Paschal controversy and the attempts by Gnostic doctrines to infiltrate.

The Paschal controversy arose as a consequence of the differences between the Roman Church — followed by nearly all the others — and the Asian churches, concerning the day on which Easter was to be celebrated.

Those churches held that the celebration should take place on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, whatever day of the week it might fall on; whereas the Roman practice, officially instituted by Pope Pius I, was that Easter should always be commemorated on Sunday, the Sunday following the fourteenth of Nisan. Although it may seem otherwise, this was not a trivial question, since the date of Easter conditioned the entire liturgical cycle and was a tangible sign of communion among all the churches.

In an attempt to resolve the matter, and despite his advanced age of over eighty years, the venerable bishop of Smyrna — Saint Polycarp, who would shortly afterwards die a martyr — journeyed to Rome during the pontificate of Pope Anicetus (155–166). Despite the efforts of both parties, it was impossible to reach an agreement. Polycarp could not renounce the Paschal tradition of the churches of Asia, a tradition of Judeo-Christian roots that he had learned from the Apostle John the Evangelist himself, of whom he was a direct disciple. The two bishops, being unable to achieve liturgical unity, wished to make clear their maintenance of peace between them; and as a visible sign of communion, Pope Anicetus did Polycarp the honor of inviting him to celebrate the Eucharist in his own church.

The problem became more acute towards the end of the second century, as a consequence of the introduction into the liturgy of Asian churches of certain Judaizing observances, such as the rite of the Paschal lamb. In view of the direction matters were taking, Pope Victor I (189–198), in a significant exercise of his primatial authority, convoked the meeting of provincial synods in the various churches; and all of them, save those of Asia, agreed with the Roman usage. The Asians reaffirmed their position, and on their behalf Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus wrote a vehement letter to the Pope. Victor I reacted firmly and threatened the Asians with canonical sanctions, including excommunication.

The rupture was never consummated, and to this the peaceable intervention of Irenaeus of Lyons contributed greatly: having reiterated his own adherence to the Roman observance, he asked the Pope not to break communion with those churches on account of their attachment to their ancient traditions, seeing that the faith of all was one and the same. Victor I heeded the requests of Irenaeus, and in time the Asian churches came to accept Roman discipline.”[63]

The profound attachment of these early Christians to preserving the Tradition received from the Apostles is beyond doubt — to the point that over a liturgical rather than a dogmatic question a schism was very nearly provoked.

Sola Scriptura has neither biblical nor patristic foundation. Had the early Church thought as Protestantism thinks today, it would have suffered the same consequences Protestantism endures and would have been submerged in an unstoppable wave of divisions, with each person claiming to impose his own interpretation of the Scriptures in isolation from Tradition. The simple fact that Protestants know which books constitute the Bible they owe to Tradition, since no book of Scripture enumerates the books of the Bible. Protestants also overlook the fact that the early Christians did not possess a fully defined canon of the New Testament. The Muratorian Fragment, the oldest known catalogue of New Testament books, did not include all the books of the canon as we know it today. Thus, although the books belonging to the canon of the New Testament were written in the first century, the canon as such was only definitively defined at the end of the fourth century.

Notes

  1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ↩
  2. 1 Corinthians 11:2 ↩
  3. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ↩
  4. The original quotation writes “tradition” and “Catholic Church” in lowercase letters. This is a common practice on some Protestant websites. I have taken the liberty of correcting this in the reproduced citation. ↩
  5. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians 8; J. B. Lightfoot, Los Padres Apostólicos, Editorial CLIE; another translation in Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Padres Apostólicos, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 65, 5th edition, Madrid 1985, pp. 485-486. ↩
  6. Papias, Fragments, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III,39; Paul L. Maier, Eusebio, Historia de la Iglesia, Editorial Portavoz, Michigan 1999, p. 126. ↩
  7. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III,2,1-2; Carlos Ignacio González, S.J., Ireneo de Lyon, Contra los herejes, Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, México 2000 (all quotations from this work are taken from this edition). ↩
  8. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies I,10,2 ↩
  9. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III,4,1 ↩
  10. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III,4,2 ↩
  11. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III,3,1 ↩
  12. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III,3,2 ↩
  13. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies V,20,1 ↩
  14. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I,1; New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm ↩
  15. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I,1; Ibid. ↩
  16. Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition I,1; Johannes Quasten, Patrología I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 206, 5th edition, Madrid 1995, p. 492. ↩
  17. Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition III,38; Ibid., p. 499. ↩
  18. Origen, De Principiis 1,2 [inter A.D. 220-230]; William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1970, p. 190. ↩
  19. Origen, In Rom. com. 5,9: EH 249; Johannes Quasten, Patrología I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 206, 5th edition, Madrid 1995, p. 395. ↩
  20. In Ios. hom. 3,5; Ibid., p. 394. ↩
  21. In Rom. 10,5; Ibid. ↩
  22. Tertullian, Prescriptions against All Heresies 32,1-4; Fuentes Patrísticas 14: Tertuliano, Prescripciones contra todas las herejías, ed. Salvador Vicastillo, Editorial Ciudad Nueva, pp. 253-255. ↩
  23. Tertullian, Prescriptions against All Heresies 15,2-4; 16,1; Ibid., pp. 197-199. ↩
  24. Tertullian, Prescriptions against All Heresies 37,1; Ibid., p. 275. ↩
  25. Tertullian, Prescriptions against All Heresies 17,1-3; Ibid., pp. 199-201. ↩
  26. Tertullian, Prescriptions against All Heresies 21; Ibid., pp. 211-215. ↩
  27. Tertullian, De baptismo 1; Johannes Quasten, Patrología I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 206, 5th edition, Madrid 1995, p. 576. ↩
  28. Cyprian, Epistle 67, 5. New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050667.htm. ↩
  29. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 75, 3. New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm. ↩
  30. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church 4-5; Johannes Quasten, Patrología I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 206, 5th edition, Madrid 1995, pp. 645-646. ↩
  31. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV,21; Paul L. Maier, Eusebio, Historia de la Iglesia, Editorial Portavoz, Michigan 1999, p. 157. ↩
  32. Ep. 74,1 ↩
  33. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VII,3; Ibid., p. 254. ↩
  34. Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa, 2 (A.D. 368/372). Cited in Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. I, p. 343. ↩
  35. Athanasius of Alexandria, De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 13; New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm ↩
  36. Athanasius of Alexandria, De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 4; Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/npnf204/xiv.ii.ii; New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm ↩
  37. Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Gentes 6; Ibid., p. 76. ↩
  38. Athanasius of Alexandria, Epistula ad Serapionem 1,28; Johannes Quasten, Patrología II, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 217, 4th edition, Madrid 1985, p. 70. ↩
  39. Athanasius of Alexandria, Festal Letters, 2, 6. Cited in Dave Armstrong, The Church Fathers Were Catholic (Lulu Publishing, 2007), p. 75. ↩
  40. Mansi, Conc. 7,464 ↩
  41. Athanasius of Alexandria, Epistula ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi 3; Ibid., p. 81. ↩
  42. Augustine of Hippo, C. ep. Man. 5,6; cf. C. Faustum 28,2. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm ↩
  43. Augustine of Hippo, Letter to Januarius (Ep 54,1-2); Obras Completas de San Agustín, Vol. VIII, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 69, Madrid 1986, p. 338. ↩
  44. Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists V,23,31; New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14085.htm ↩
  45. Augustine of Hippo, Letter to Dioscorus (Ep 118,32); Obras Completas de San Agustín, Vol. VIII, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 69, Madrid 1986, p. 879. ↩
  46. Augustine of Hippo, C. ep. Man. 4,5-6. ↩
  47. John Chrysostom, Homily on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians; William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. II, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1979, p. 124. ↩
  48. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 9,22; Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/npnf208/vii.x; New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm ↩
  49. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 10,25; Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/npnf208/vii.xi ↩
  50. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 12,28; Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/npnf208/vii.xiii ↩
  51. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 27,66; William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. II, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1979, pp. 18-19. ↩
  52. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 27,67. ↩
  53. Ibid., 27,71. ↩
  54. Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61,6; William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. II, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1979, p. 73. ↩
  55. Gregory of Nyssa, De anima et resurr.: PG 46,49B; Johannes Quasten, Patrología II, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 217, 4th edition, Madrid 1985, p. 316. ↩
  56. Gregory of Nyssa, Quod non sint tres dii: PG 45,117; Ibid., p. 317. ↩
  57. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 4,17. http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/CIRILO_J/Cirilo_06.htm ↩
  58. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 5,12. http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/CIRILO_J/Cirilo_07.htm ↩
  59. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis XVIII,26-27. http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/CIRILO_J/Cirilo_20.htm ↩
  60. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis XXII,9. http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/CIRILO_J/Cirilo_24.htm ↩
  61. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis XXIII,8-9. http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/CIRILO_J/Cirilo_25.htm ↩
  62. ChristianAnswers.net, “What Did the Early Church Believe About the Authority of Sacred Scripture?” ↩
  63. José Orlandis, El pontificado romano en la historia, Editorial Palabra, Second Edition, Madrid 2003, pp. 37-38. ↩