Charles Spurgeon, Full-Preterism, and Figurative Language

A friend of mine who is a full-preterist quoted the following from Charles Spurgeon:

From the mouth of Charles Spurgeon...A Non-Preterist Understands the Figurative Language of The Bible.. (On the New Heavens and Earth)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like THE OLD HEAVENS AND EARTH to the Jewish believers, THEY HAVE PASSED AWAY, and WE NOW LIVE UNDER A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354)." [source]

This quote can be found on a couple of eschatology related websites. I would take a guess this quote was taken from the Preterist Archive: C.H. Spurgeon. Those involved with Preterism appear to look for anything written by anybody in regard to A.D. 70 and the fall of Jerusalem (simply skim through the pages at the Preterist Archive). The Preterist Archive (now partial preterist) takes this quote without explaining the context. On the other hand, I would assume my full-preterist friend is highlighting Spurgeon's use of figurative language as a polemic against dispensational theology.

So I went and looked up this sermon. The sermon is on Isaiah 65:17-19 ("Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind"). The sermon is entitled, God Rejoicing in the New Creation (no. 2211). It can be found in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 37 beginning on page 442. Spurgeon begins:

THIS passage, like the rest of Isaiah’s closing chapters, will have completest fulfillment in the latter days when Christ shall come, when the whole company of his elect ones shall have been gathered out from the world, when the whole creation shall have been renewed, when new heavens and a new earth shall be the product of the Savior’s power, when, for ever and for ever, perfected saints of God shall behold his face, and joy and rejoice in him (p.442).

One can see that Spurgeon begins saying the New heavens and earth are future. He goes on to say:

There is to be a literal new creation, but that new creation has commenced already; and I think, therefore, that even now we ought to manifest a part of the joy. If we are called upon to be glad and rejoice in the completion of the work, let us rejoice even in the commencement of it (p. 443).

He has commenced it thus — by putting new hearts into as many as he has called by his Spirit, regenerating them, and making them to become new creatures in Christ Jesus. These the apostle tells us are a kind of firstfruits of this now creation (p.443).

Spurgeon then goes on to speak of how people should see God in the current world and rejoice in God as creator. Christians should most rejoice in their being a new creation:

The eye that can see the new nature is an eye that grace has given, and newly opened to new light. The heart that can rejoice in the new creation is a heart that is itself renewed, or else it would not comprehend spiritual things, and could not rejoice in them. I invite you, therefore, dear friends — you that see, and know, and somewhat appreciate the new creation in its beginnings — to joy, and to rejoice in it to-night. It is a delightful thing that God should make a tree, and bid it come forth in the springtide with all its budding verdure. It is a far better thing that God should take a poor thorny heart like yours and mine, and transform it till it becomes like the fir-tree or the pine-tree to his praise. (p.446).

Spurgeon continues on this theme of christians being the begining of the new creation, as people who look forward to the new creation coming in its fullness. Then comes the first quote cited:

As an instance of the expulsive power of a new delight, we all know how the memory of the old dispensation is gone from us. Brethren, did any one of you ever weep because you did not sit at the Passover? Did you ever regret the Paschal lamb? Oh, never, because you have fed on Christ! Was there ever man that knows his Lord that ever did lament that he had not the
sign of the old Abrahamic covenant in his flesh? Nay, he gladly dispenses with the rites of the old covenant, since he has the fullness of their meaning in his Lord. The believer is circumcised in Christ, buried in Christ, risen in Christ, and in Christ exalted to the heavenly places. Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, or any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the
dedication? No, because, though those were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone; and we do not remember it (p.448).

From the context, Spurgeon's "figurative language" is simply describing the Old Testament rituals and practices that looked forward to Christ. Since Christ has come, he's begun to usher in the new heavens and earth, beginning this work in the hearts of believers. He continues:

Now, I want you to feel just the same with regard to all your former life as you now feel towards that old dispensation. The world is dead to you, and you to the world. Carnal customs and attractions are for you abolished, even as the ancient sacrifices are abolished. What were your sins? They are blotted out: the depths have covered them: you shall see them again no more for ever. Seek not after them as though you had a lingering esteem for them. Let them not come to mind, except to excite you to repentance. What were your pleasures when you lived in sin? Forget them. They were very vapid, deceptive, destructive evils. You have a higher pleasure now which enchants your soul. What have been the sorrows of your past life, especially your sorrows while coming to Christ? You need not remember them; but, like the woman who remembereth no more her travail for the joy that a man is born into the world, so your birth into the new creation causes you to forget all the sufferings of your spirit in coming there. “Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new!” I would to God that the joy of the new creation would so fill us right up to the brim that we should not imaging any other joy. This puts out all other joy as the sun hides all the stars. Let all go; let all go: rolled up as the heavens and the earth are to be, like vestures all outworn, let all of my past life be laid aside. Now put I on my new dress of sparkling joy and delight in the new things, for has not Christ made all things new to me? A new song is in my mouth, even praise to him for evermore; a new law is in my heart; and a new service engages all my powers (pp. 448-449).

Another Gem from Catholic Answers: Mary's Assumption

I find these sort of discussions fascinating:

Mary's Assumption

"I was watching a video that Steve Ray produced about a quick run through Jerusalem and he showed the church where the BVM died and was assumed into Heaven. What got me thinking is this, why did the BVM needed to die in order to be assumed? Elijah didn't die when he was taken up in the chariot. Also, I know that based on Tradition, it is said that the BVM didnt suffer the pangs of child birth because she was immaculately conceived and therefore was not subject to the effects of sin, but, if this is part of the Tradition, why did she have to die in order to be assumed into Heaven?"

-snip-

"it is not defined dogma that she did die, and I have seen this video several times and don't think he said definitely that she died. There is a long tradition in the Eastern Church in fact that she fell asleep, the Dormition."

-snip-

"The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. Catholics are free to believe she died first or did not die first."

-snip-

"This falls under Common Teaching [Sententia Communis. This means Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by thelogians generally."

-snip-

"The document that pronounced the dogma of the Assumption is called Munificentissimus Deus. The specific paragraph containing the definition, remains open to whether or not Mary did or did not have a temporal death."

-snip-

"...I always thought that Mary was assumed with out dying, especially when I compared Elijah's assumption with that of Mary."

-snip-

"It was not necessary that Mary die. She chose to out of the imitation of Jesus."

-snip-

"There is a Scripture, and I hope that someone who knows where this is in Scripture will respond to this thread, that it has been appointed unto all men that they are to die once..."

-snip-

"Hebrews 9:27 (Douay Rheims) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment"

-snip-

"And this is a good example of exactly the kind of problem there is with proof-texting...the context of that Scripture has nothing to do with the context of our thread here."

-snip-

"That is one acceptable intrepretation. However the other intepretation is also acceptable as well."

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

Ah, all this time I thought it was the recent batch of Roman apologists destroying heresy and protecting the infallible magisterium. But I was wrong:

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

Overview of Luther on the Clarity / Obscurity of Scripture by William Whitaker

The following is an overview by William Whitaker of a section of Luther's argumentation from The Bondage of the Will. This passage is from William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture.

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned, by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All which is perfectly true: for although there is much obscurity in many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. Stapleton, Lib. x. cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of grammar and figures; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome, who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetoric, and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things, and may have erred in many places. We answer, that what he blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood: for he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture, will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures. But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself, although both of them most skilful grammarians, may have erred in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the things themselves are manifest in scripture; and that therefore we need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in many places less manifest. His words are these: "The things themselves are in light; we need not care, therefore, though some signs of the things be in darkness 1." But some persons complain greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our blindness and ignorance. And this he very properly confirms by the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that "the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day, which vail is done away in Christ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where the same apostle says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the similitude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in themselves, are invisible to the blind. "There is nothing," says he, "brighter than the sun and the day: but the blind man cannot even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light 2." Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity, of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of the christian religion: the truth of which (though not of all, yet of those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He is not speaking of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame of blindness on that account.

But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some dogmas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like; and to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom. xi. 33, where Paul says that the "judgments of God are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out." Luther answers, that these doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves; but that they are plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will be content with that knowledge which God hath propounded and conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure, but that the things of scripture are clear; that the judgments of God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable; but that those things which God hath revealed in his word are by no means inscrutable to us; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says, that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, especially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the simplicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate by their traps and devices; but that the scripture must not be falsely blamed on account of men's abuse of it. Luther uses another distinction also in that place. He says that the perspicuity or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external; the internal is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says that not even one jot is in this way clear in the scripture without the internal light of the Holy Spirit; for that all things in this view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men, according to that which is said in Ps. xiv.: "The fool hath said in his heart, that there is no God." But if we understand the external clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the word. And this distinction is very necessary: for although, in the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion, we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philosophy: since it is only the external light of nature that is required to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy; but to understand theology aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit, because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the Spirit, as many impious men and devils do; but we cannot have the irXtipocpop'iat that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge, without the Holy Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally understood; but this is of no avail unless understood internally. Meanwhile Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpretation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many obscurities and difficulties in the scripture, which God hath left us, as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a man must be impudent who would say that he understood even any one book thoroughly: and the same hath ever been the opinion of us all.

The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the papists would have it appear; but our fundamental principles are these: First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we concede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures need explication; and that, on this account, God's ministers are to be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning the state of the question.

[1 Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.— Opp. Witeberg. T. n. p. 459. 2.]

[2 Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi oculos velaret.—Ibid. p. 460.]

Which Jerome is the Real Jerome?

Jerome as Cited by the Reformers
Recently I posted remarks from Luther and Calvin on Jerome's view on the term "bishop" as it relates to the primacy of the Roman church. Both Luther and Calvin cite Jerome as holding the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. Luther and Calvin admit Jerome held  that among the bishops in the early church one was picked as a type of leader in a particular location. The Reformers highlight the fact  (particularly Luther) that for Jerome, Rome's bishop does not hold supremacy over the other bishops in other locations. Luther: "Indeed [Jerome] says that the bishop of Gubbio, a small town not far from Rome, is equal to the bishop of Rome himself." Calvin: "For from the corrupted signification of the word this evil has resulted, that, as if all the presbyters were not colleagues, called to the same office, one of them, under the pretext of a new appellation, usurped dominion over the others." Luther was so convinced of the importance of Jerome's view that he actually republished a letter from Jerome. For the Reformers, Jerome's words stood as a testimony that the claims of Roman Papal rule over the universal church were fraudulent.

Jerome as Cited by Modern Roman Catholic Apologists
I searched around a bit to see how some of Rome's modern apologists have understood Jerome's statements from the two sources Luther and Calvin utilized (this isn't any sort of comprehensive investigation, but represents what I tracked down in about thirty minutes, I'm sure many other snippets could be brought forth).

One blogger refers to Calvin's citation of Jerome as an attempt to make Jerome hold "some sort of proto-Baptist or proto-Presbyterian in ecclesiology." Rather than exegete the statements in question, other statements from Jerome are put forth showing Jerome gave Rome preeminence and accepted Rome's decisions as authoritative. Calvin's view of Jerome is said to be "a half-truth or a selective truth" and "a little better than a falsehood." Calvin's understanding of Jerome is ultimately said to be the result of espousing sola scriptura: anyone holding to sola scriptua must come up with ways to deny the Roman church as having binding final authority over all of Christendom, even reinterpreting Church fathers like Jerome. The "other" Jerome being put forth by Rome's apologists is based on letters Jerome wrote to Pope Damasus. Jerome is cited as follows:

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.” “Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. . . .

2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. . . . He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

(Letter XV. To Pope Damasus; NPNF 2, Vol. VI)

The untiring foe follows me closely, and the assaults that I suffer in the desert are severer than ever. For the Arian frenzy raves, and the powers of the world support it. The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and passion, those necessary glories of our faith, as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria, . . .

(Letter XVI. To Pope Damasus, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. VI)

From a forum posting comes an alleged excerpt from Robert Sungenis (which certainly sounds like Mr. Sungenis... I was unable though to locate the source):

St. Jerome (342-420 A.D.) "Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles." R. Sungenis: This is the best quote they could find to deny the papacy?! Not only does it not deny the papacy, it actually supports it, since it makes it quite clear that the bishops are successers of the Apostles! Yet Horton and White have gone on record denying that there is a succession from the Apostles. And notice that Jerome makes no statement against the papacy itself. How could he? His letters and books are filled with allegiance and obedience to the papacy! This again just shows the desperation of Horton and White. If they were smart, they would stop basing their critiques of the Catholic Church on the Fathers, for every time they make such attempts, they only show us how faithful the Fathers were to the Catholic Church. Until if and when Horton or White finds a statement in any Church Father which says: "I deny the papacy," or "I deny that the pope is the successor of Peter and that he has full reign over the Church," or something to that effect, then they simply don't have a leg to stand on, and they only show how shoddy their scholarship really is.

Often it seems the quotes cited by Luther and Calvin are passed over by Rome's modern apologists in favor of presenting snippets from Jerome's letters to Damasus or other selections. Quotes from Jerome identifying Peter as "the rock" or head of the Roman church appear to be enough for Rome's modern apologists.  For instance, in their web page Origins of Peter as Pope, Catholic Answers provides two quotes from Jerome. The first quote presents Peter as leading the Apostles. The underlying assumption implied is that Peter is head of the entire church. This is then supported by a snippet from letter XV :

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Patrick Madrid cites Jerome calling Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus).

 Steve Ray cites letter XV and XVI and states:

Mark Bonocore says "Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1)." He also cites Jerome stating, "'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well... one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [AD 393])".

The Dilemma
The dilemma is obvious. On the one hand, Protestant-cited-Jerome speaks of an equality among bishops in different locations. On the other hand, Roman-Catholic-cited-Jerome speaks of Roman authority in some sense.

I think it's fairly clear from Jerome's writings that he did identify the pope in Rome with the chair of Peter, and at times also referred to Peter as the rock upon which the church is built. For Jerome, the bishop in Rome was certainly the successor of Peter. But elsewhere Jerome also identifies Christ as the rock upon which the church was built. William Webster points out:

Jerome states that while Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church, the other apostles share this status with him in a secondary sense- the Church is built upon their teaching. He states that all the apostles are what Peter was. They have all been given the keys and the all share equal authority. All lawful bishops are successors of the apostles. The Church is built upon Peter, it is built upon the apostles. While the bishop of Rome does sit upon the chair of Peter, this is not an exclusive possession of the bishop of Rome, as we saw in the use of this term by Cyprian and Opatus of Milevis:

"This mountain is in the house of the Lord, which the prophet sighs after, saying, 'One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life,' (Ps. xxvii.4), and concerning which Paul writes to Timothy, 'But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. iii.15). This house is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as imitators of Christ. Of this house, Jerusalem, the Psalmist cries out saying, 'They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion; he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Mountains are round about it; and the Lord is round about His people' (Ps. cxxiv.1). Whence also upon one of the mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to him, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Commentary on Isaiah ii.2. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Comentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 111-112].

" 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church.' Just as Christ himself gave light to the apostles, in order that they might be called the light of the world, so other names were derived from the Lord: for example, Simon, who believed in the rock, Christ, was given the name 'Peter.' And in accordance with the metaphor of the rock, Jesus rightly said to him: 'I shall build my Church upon you. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'" [Commentary on Matthew III, 16:18, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 121-122].

"'Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.'...For if those who are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ himself being the cornerstone-in whom the whole building has been joined together into a temple holy in the Lord, in whom the Ephesians are built into a temple of God in the spirit: if this is so, then there is one God of one building and temple which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Now if a universal building is joined together and is growing into a temple holy in the Lord, then we must strive with every effort to become the sorts of stones about which it is written: 'holy stones are rolled upon the earth.'"[on Ephesians II.20, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 506-507]

"Though, he says, the Lord had with Him the apostles Peter and John; and they saw Him transfigured on the mount, and upon them the foundation of the Church is placed..."[Commentary on Galatians I.11. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 116-117]

Source: William Webster The Matthew 16 Controversy (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 1999), pp. 69-70.

The paradigm Webster puts forth harmonizes Jerome's letters quite easily. It can consistently and harmoniously interpret any of the "Roman Catholic" Jerome quotes and the "Protestant" Jerome quotes. This of course means that Luther and Calvin did not misquote Jerome. Consider the following comments:

J. N. D. Kelly: Particularly interesting is his view that in the apostolic age the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ were synonymous, each church being governed by a committee of coequal presbyters. The emergence of the episcopate proper, he argues (much to the embarrassment of Catholics down the centuries), was due, not to any ordinance of the Lord, but to ecclesiastical custom, with the object of excluding divisions. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), p. 147

Philip Schaff: [Jerome] recognizes in the Roman bishop the successor of Peter, but advocates elsewhere the equal rights of the bishops, and in fact derives even the episcopal office, not from direct divine institution, but from the usage of the church and from the presidency in the presbyterium. He can therefore be cited as a witness, at most, for a primacy of honor, not for a supremacy of jurisdiction. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrikson Publishers, Inc., 2002), p. 305]

Vatican encourages a recovery of 'apologetics'

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200163.htm

"Over the past 50 years, apologetics lost its general appeal because 'it was considered proselytism,' an aggressive attempt to win converts that was replaced by ecumenical dialogue, he said. It didn't help that many Catholics started seeing all religions as equally valid paths to salvation, so they thought it was best to encourage people to live their own faith as best they could without trying to encourage them to consider Christianity."

-snip-

The need for articulate Catholics who could remain calm under fire became evident after a 2009 formal debate in England in which Hitchens and the actor Stephen Fry faced off against Nigerian Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja and Ann Widdecombe, a Catholic member of Parliament. The crowd clearly was on the side of Hitchens and Fry, who argued against the motion that "the Catholic Church is a force for good."

Jerome On the Equality of Bishops... According to Calvin

It wasn't only Luther appealing to Jerome  that "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. John Calvin held that in the early church all those entrusted with teaching were called "presbyters." Among the presbyters one was chosen to be "bishop" in order to maintain order (Institutes IV, 4:2). Calvin explains, and appeals to Jerome:

All those to whom the office of teaching was enjoined they called “presbyters.” In each city these chose one of their number to whom they specially gave the title “bishop” in order that dissensions might not arise (as commonly happens) from equality of rank. Still, the bishop was not so much higher in honor and dignity as to have lordship over his colleagues. But the same functions that the consul has in the senate—to report on business, to request opinions, to preside over others in counseling,admonishing, and exhorting, to govern the whole action by his authority,and to carry out what was decreed by common decision—the bishop carried out in the assembly of presbyters.


And the ancients themselves admit that this was introduced by human agreement to meet the need of the times. “Thus Jerome, commenting on the letter to Titus, says: “Bishop and presbyter are one and the same. And before, by the devil’s prompting, dissensions arose in religion and it was said among the people, ‘I am of Paul, I of Cephas’ 1 Corinthians 1:12; [cf. chapter 3:4], churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters.” Afterward, to remove seeds of dissensions, all oversight was committed to one person. Just as the presbyters, therefore, know that they are, according to the custom of the church, subject to him who presides, so the bishops recognize that they are superior to the presbyters more according to the custom of the church than by the Lord’s actual arrangement, and that they ought to govern the church in cooperation with them.* Jerome, however, tells us in another place what an ancient arrangement it was. For he says that at Alexandria from the time of the Evangelist Mark to that of Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always elected one of their number and set him in a higher rank, calling him “bishop.”**


*Ignatius, Letters, Magnesians 6; Trallians 3 (LCL Apostolic Fathers I.200-202, 214 f.);Cyprian, Letters 14. 4; 19; 34. 4 (CSEL 3. 2. 512, 526, 570; tr. ANF [letters 5, 13, 18, respectively] V. 283, 293, 297); Statuta ecclesia antiqua, canons 22, 23 (Mansi III. 953; on this document, see H. Leclercq, in Hefele-Leclercq II. 1. 108-120); Jerome, Commentary on Titus, chapter 1 (MPL 26. 562 f.).


**Jerome, Letters cxlvi, 1 (CSEL 56. 310; MPL 22. 1193; tr. NPNF 2 ser. VI. 288).

Calvin uses the same two Jerome sources Luther did. Like Luther, he brings this use of Jerome up throughout his writings.

Commenting on Philippians 1:1 (overseers [traditionally bishops] and deacons) Calvin says:

Bishops. He names the pastors separately, for the sake of honor. We may, however, infer from this, that the name of bishop is common to all the ministers of the Word, inasmuch as he assigns several bishops to one Church. The titles, therefore, of bishop and pastor, are synonymous. And this is one of the passages which Jerome quotes for proving this in his epistle to Evagrius, and in his exposition of the Epistle to Titus. Afterwards there crept in the custom of applying the name of bishop exclusively to the person whom the presbyters in each church appointed over their company. It originated, however, in a human custom, and rests on no Scripture authority. I acknowledge, indeed, that, as the minds and manners of men are, there cannot be order maintained among the ministers of the word, without one presiding over the others. I speak of particular bodies, not of whole provinces, much less of the whole world. Now, although we must not contend for words, it were at the same time better for us in speaking to follow the Holy Spirit, the author of tongues, than to change for the worse forms of speech which are dictated to us by Him. For from the corrupted signification of the word this evil has resulted, that, as if all the presbyters were not colleagues, called to the same office, one of them, under the pretext of a new appellation, usurped dominion over the others.

Commenting on 1 Timothy 1:7 (For a bishop ought to be blameless, as a governor of the house of God):

This passage plainly shows that there is no distinction between a presbyter and a bishop; for he now calls indiscriminately, by the latter name, those whom he formerly he employs both names in the same sense, without any distinction; as Jerome has remarked, both in his Commentary on this passage, and in his Epistle to Evagrius. And hence we may perceive how much greater deference has been paid to the opinions of men than ought to have been paid to them; for the language of the Holy Spirit, has been set aside, and the custom introduced by the arbitrary will of man has prevailed. For my own part, I do not find fault with the custom which has existed from the very beginning of the Church, that each assembly of bishops shall have one moderator; but that the name of office which God has given to all, shall be conveyed to one alone, and that all the rest shall be deprived of it, is both unreason able and absurd. Besides, to pervert the language of the Holy Spirit — in such a manner that the same words shall have a different meaning from what he intended — is excessive and profane hardihood.

Responses to Luther and Calvin?
I have located some responses to this use of Jerome by the early Reformers. The responses that I've come across put forth another Jerome which looked to Rome as the preeminent church and the authority and preeminence of the Roman pope to settle disputes. I hope to get to this later this week.

Jerome On the Word "Pope" and the Equality of Bishops...According to Luther

In 1538 Luther republished Letter 146 of Jerome (to Evagrius) along with a preface. This is found in the recent volume of Luther's Works (60). In this letter, Jerome argues "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. In the early church it wasn't the case that bishops held more power than presbyters. The editors of LW point out, "The emergence of a distinction of superiority of bishops over presbyters was not scriptural, but rather the product of tradition, arising, as Jerome argues, to remedy schism and to provide order in the church" (p. 203).

Luther was fond of this letter in his battle against the papacy because Jerome also notes the equality of bishops, as opposed to Rome claiming her bishop is superior and is so by divine right. In his preface to Jerome's letter, Luther states:

Rather, all bishops were equal among themselves. And again, the bishops themselves were the same as presbyters. Indeed [Jerome] says that the bishop of Gubbio, a small town not far from Rome, is equal to the bishop of Rome himself. Oh, how great a heretic he would be, if this holy man were alive today! It is amazing that thousands do not condemn him to the lowest hell, together with all his writings! (p. 206).

Then Luther comments on the word "pope"-

And the word "pope" was the common title of bishops. Thus St. Jerome calls St. Augustine "most holy pope."* And they called Cyprian "pope in the Church of Carthage."** Hence it is evident that the entire papal hierarchy is a matter of the doctrines of men [Matt. 15:9], or, more correctly, of demons [1 Tim. 4:1], introduced through lying hypocrites. "All are equal in merit and priesthood," says Jerome. "It is the power of riches and the lowliness of poverty that make a bishop either higher or lower" (p. 206).

*Jerome, Epistolae 102, 103, 105, 112, 115, 134, 141 and 142 to Augustine (PL 22:830, 831, 834, 916, 935, 1161, 1179, 1180; CSEL 56:261-262, 290). In the early church "pope" was used as a title of respect that could be given to any bishop; only later did it become a title exclusive to the bishop of Rome
**For Cyprian addressed as "pope," see the letter to him from the Roman church, Epistola 30 (PL 4:303; ANF 5:308); cf. Epistola 2 (PL 4:224; ANF 5:280); Epistola 16 (PL 4:269; ANF 5:296).

Luther appears to be quoting the following from Jerome:

It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.

Besides this text, Luther also appealed to Jerome's Commentary on the epistle to Titus 1:5, 6, 7
Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum), Titus 1:7 (MPL 26, 562): “The presbyter is the same as the bishop.… the bishops should have known that they were greater according to custom rather than according to the truth of the Lord’s ordinance.” Luther used this very thing in the Leipzig debate against Eck, as described by  W.H.T. Dau :

[Eck's] remark that at Rome and at the Seat of Peter originated sacerdotal unity, I grant quite freely, with reference to the Western Church. But in reality the Roman Church sprang from the Church at Jerusalem, and this latter is properly the mother of all churches. But the inference which he draws is worthless: since sacerdotal unity has its origin in the Roman Church, therefore that Church is the head and first mistress over all; with his logic he might establish beyond question that Jerusalem is the head and lord over all churches. His last authority, Jerome, even if he were altogether reliable, has not been correctly quoted by our excellent Doctor; he intends to prove that the monarchical power of the Roman Church exists by divine right and has been instituted by Christ. Jerome's words do not say this. His remark: "There would be as many schisms in the Church as there are bishops, unless some extraordinary power eminent over all others were given him," means: Let us assume that this could be done by human, right, all the rest of the believers giving their consent. For I myself do not deny that if the believers throughout the world were to agree, on a first and supreme pontiff at Rome, Paris, Magdeburg, or anywhere else, this person ought to be regarded as the highest monarch out of respect for the entire Church of believers who are thus agreed. But this has never happened, nor is it happening now, nor will it ever happen; for down to our times the Greek Church has given no such consent, and yet has not been regarded as heretical. That this is Jerome's meaning I prove from his epistle to Evagrius, where he says: "Wherever there may be a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Thanae, his worth and episcopal office is the same. The influence of wealth and the humiliation of poverty may make one sublime, the other lowly; nevertheless all are successors of the apostles." We find the epistle cited in Decretals that are not worthless, in the 93d distinction. In his commentary on Titus the same author says: "The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and ere by the devil's prompting there came to be competition in religious affairs and people were saying, 'I am of Paul, I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by a joint council of the presbyters. Afterwards, when each presbyter thought that those who had been baptized by him belonged to him, the rule was made for the whole circuit that one presbyter should be chosen to be above the rest." And citing Scripture-proof, he says toward the end: "Accordingly, as the presbyters knew that by a custom of the Church they were subject to the person that was placed over them, so the bishops knew that they were above the presbyters in consequence of a custom rather than of any arrangement of true overlordship." The Doctor's remark, that Jerome had referred to the Supreme Pontiff at Rome when he said: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of Christ, and I am an associate of his happiness, that is, of the Seat of Peter; I know that the Church is built on that Rock," is irrelevant. It does not follow that because I associate with this particular church, therefore it is the first. It does not follow that because this church is built upon the Rock, therefore it alone is thus built up. Add to this the decree of the African council in the 99th distinction, chap. 1: "The bishop of the first seat shall not be called the prince of .priests nor the supreme priest, nor by any similar title, but only the bishop of the first seat. Nor shall the Bishop of Rome be called the universal pontiff." Now, if the monarchy of the Roman Pontiff exists by divine right, all these statements would be heresy, which it would rash to assert. To conclude, let us hear our Lord Himself, who says Luke 22: "There was also a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger."

Luther's use of Jerome would eventually find its way into the Smalcald Artilces (now part of the Book of Concord):

Consequently the church cannot be better governed and maintained than by having all of us live under one head, Christ, and by having all the bishops equal in office (however they may differ in gifts) and diligently joined together in unity of doctrine, faith, sacraments, prayer, works of love, etc. So St. Jerome writes that the priests of Alexandria governed the churches together and in common. The apostles did the same, and after them all the bishops throughout Christendom, until the pope raised his head over them all.

Luther appears to be quoting from memory here, combining letter 146 and the Titus commentary.


Addendum
A helpful overview of Jerome's view of th papacy was put together by William Webster The Matthew 16 Controversy (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 1999). There, Webster begins with this statement from Jerome:

Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (p.68).

One would think this quote ends all dispute as to Jerome's view (see the quote in action on the CTC blog). Webster though goes through a number of quotes from Jerome, pointing out that indeed, Jerome saw that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter. But, for Jerome, Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church, and the other apostles share this with him in a secondary sense (p.69). All the apostles have the keys and equal authority.  Many of the quotes from Jerome utilized by Webster are on his web page The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18. The same Jerome letter used by Luther is also used by Webster:

When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves...For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africac and Persia, India and the East all worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more of a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles(p.71).

Luther: "We must concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them"

Ryan asks:

Hi James. I thought you might be interested in attempting to track down the following alleged Luther quote in its context: ‎"We must concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them."

This quote is probably a version of something I tracked down many years ago (2006). It was the main subject of this blog entry: Luther: The Infallible Church Declared The Contents of Scripture? If it's the same quote,  it's usually cited as "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

The citation is from Luther’s Sermons on John 16 [LW 24] (not a commentary, as is often asserted by Roman Catholics using the quote). Luther preached on John 14-16 after March 14, 1537, finishing in either June or July of 1537. The sermons were taken down and edited by Caspar Cruciger. Luther actually credits Cruciger for writing the book. In other words, Luther didn’t sit down and write an exegetical commentary on John. Rather, this quote was the result of preaching, and someone else writing it down the way he heard it.

In my old entry on this quote I've presented the context, so there's no need to re-post it all again. Is Luther conceding an infallible church gave us the canon? Absolutely not. Is Luther saying an infallible extra-biblical tradition produced the Canon? No. Luther is simply saying that he learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in.

The "Official" Roman Catholic Philosophy?

It's been months (or perhaps a year or two?) since I've had any interactions with the person behind the Catholic Champion blog. I visit the Catholic Champion occasionally. Two recent posts deserve mentioning:

A Warning to Those Who Oppose Saint Thomas and Scholasticism: In this entry, a few quotes from Pius X are brought up in which he asserts "We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences" and "those are to be disapproved as of Modernist tendencies who exalt positive theology in such a way as to seem to despise the scholastic."

The real gem though is the post Contradictions? You Decide... This post contains dueling quotes from various popes on scholastic philosophy. for instance:

Pope Pius X wrote: "The chief doctrines of St. Thomas' philosophy cannot be regarded as mere opinions—which anyone might discuss pro and con, but rather as a foundation on which all science of both natural and divine things rests. If they are taken away, or perverted in any way, then this necessarily follows: that the students of sacred studies will not perceive even the meaning of those words whereby the divinely revealed dogmas are uttered by the teaching of the Church."

Compare to:

Joseph Ratzinger: "To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend."

These Catholic Champion entries are some of the best Roman Catholic blog posts I've read in quite a while. Kudos to the Catholic Champion!

Addendum: The Catholic Champion needs to update their "Cool Catholic blogs" side bar list, and weed out those who have left the cool Roman Catholic church.

Luther lied when he said of Tetzel: "He sold grace for money at the highest price"?

In my recent look at Tetzel's alleged "as the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs", I came across some other interesting related tidbits. I found a blogger asserting, "Luther lied when he said of Tetzel in a 1541 pamphlet: 'He sold grace for money at the highest price.' " The blogger cites "Luther, Hartmann Grisar, S.J., translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: 1914-1915, 6 volumes; taken from vol. 1: 342-344" as the background source for this assertion. This assertion appears to be based on Grisar's statement on page 342:

In his pamphlet of 1541 Luther says : "He sold grace for money at the highest price he could." He then instances six "horrible, dreadful articles " which the avaricious monk had preached.

As I looked through pages 342-344, I didn't find Grisar saying Luther lied about Tetzel selling "grace for money at the highest price." Rather, Grisar goes on to expound on six articles Luther brought up in that 1541 writing, and goes through some of the legends surrounding Tetzel. Grisar is more concerned with noting that Tetzel  held that those purchasing indulgences must also be contrite. That is, the indulgence had at least one string attached (more on this below, see addendum)*. That indulgences were sold by Tetzel is not disputed by Grisar, nor does Grisar tackle any sort of "lie" about grace being sold for money.

What exactly did Luther state in 1541? He didn't exactly say Tetzel "sold grace for money at the highest price he could." Rather, Luther stated Tetzel was "selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability":

It happened, in the year 1517, that a preaching monk called John Tetzel, a great ranter, made his appearance... This same Tetzel now went around with indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability. At that time I was a preacher here in the monastery, and a fledgling doctor fervent and enthusiastic for Holy Scripture. [LW 41:231]

Grisar doesn't dispute this statement. He simply mentions what Luther stated in 1541. shortly after this, Grisar approvingly quotes a Dominican contemporary of Tetzel, Johann Lindner, criticizing the methods Tetzel used:

His teaching found favour with many; but he devised unheard-of ways of raising money, was far too liberal in conferring offices, put up far too many public crosses [as a sign of the Indulgence-preaching] in towns and villages, which caused scandal and bred complaints among the people and brought the spiritual treasury into disrepute" (Grisar, 343).

Tetzel did in fact have a financial interest in selling indulgences. Heinrich Boehmer explains :

In other respects also, Tetzel must have possessed all the characteristics which help to influence the masses. "Physically, he was a large, strong man, eloquent and very bold of speech, sufficiently educated, and his mode of life so-so," that is, neither too strict nor too lax. When he had finished his sermon, he would himself usually go to the indulgence chest and buy a certificate for his father or some other dead person, and when the money tinkled in the chest, he would cry out, "Now I am sure of his salvation; now I need pray for him no longer." In this way he stirred up the people, "especially the sentimental matrons," so that they too came to the chest and bought certificates. In fact, such power did he wield over the masses that on one occasion in Annaberg, Saxony, he prevailed upon the miners who had treated with disrespect the relics of the wandering monks of St. Anthony to follow the Anthonins in a crowd a distance of three miles to do penance for their offense. This he accomplished by threatening that all the mines would cease operations. He was always quick to utter threats. Whoever challenged his authority was immediately discomfited and reminded that he was also an inquisitor. Thus he always knew how to silence all critics, including the clerics who had been injured by the indulgence.


Apparently the unusual talent of this member of the Dominican Monastery of St. Paul in Leipzig for the business of selling indulgences was not discovered until quite late by his superiors. It was not until 1504 that he entered upon this career. After this time he was almost constantly active as an indulgence preacher. In the course of years on his journeys throughout Germany he also acquired a wide commercial experience, which later proved exceedingly useful to his employers. For example, when he could not get rid of his wares at the price demanded, he would immediately have the indulgence cross taken down again. Then after a time he would return and sell the indulgences at a substantially lower price. But he was also quite conscious of his own worth. "I am well known in Italy, in many other kingdoms, and in all Germany," he wrote on January 24, 1517, to a critic who had presumed to remark that he was not a doctor but only an ordinary begging monk. "I have showered my knowledge of theology and canon law upon mans German universities and no one has ever treated me with contempt. On the contrary, every one of them, as long as ten years ago, begged me most urgently to take my degree of doctor of theology with them. If I had wanted to, I could have been a doctor before you had ever seen even the outside of a Corpus Juris Civilis and Canonici."


Just because Tetzel thought so highly of himself, he was by no means inclined to sell himself too cheaply. For instance, for his co-operation in the Mainz indulgence enterprise he demanded eighty guldens monthly in cash, besides free transportation and free maintenance for himself and his companions and ten guldens extra for his servant, Veit. Thus this servant received in cash twenty guldens more a yew than the highest official of the wealthy town of Leipzig! Any for handling the external details of the holy trade he also demanded large sums of the Fuggers, who had financed the venture and allowed the retail sale of the holy wares to he taken care of by their agents. It is very doubtful whether he was always wholly conscientious in handling the large sums of money that passed through his hands [Heinrich Boehmer, Road to Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946). pp. 181-182].

Martin Brecht notes:

Certainly many more historical testimonies could be added. Suffice it to say that Luther did not lie in 1541 about Tetzel's "selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability." Luther may have erred in other regards to Tetzel, but he certainly did not in regard to Tetzel's ability to sell indulgences and make a living off of it. One may try to quibble that an indulgence is not the selling of grace. However, if, as the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts, "An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive", I don't know how one can think of an indulgence as anything other than obtaining grace.

*Addendum

The Church as a matter of fact did distinguish theoretically between the purchase of an indulgence and the absolution as declared by the priest in Confession. The latter could be an absolution from culpability, or of the punishments exacted by the Church, or of the divine punishments for sin in time and eternity. But because this absolution was often granted by priests who accompanied the indulgence-vendors, and thus occurred at the same time when a purchase of indulgence was made; and because from the end of the 14th century the indulgences were also called indulgences for punishment and culpability (poena et culpa) and praised as an atonement of man with God, it can be readily understood that the common people generally were of the opinion that on these occasions they had the opportunity, not only to receive indulgence for punishments, but also for culpability. For the common man did not know that theoretically the Church had bound together freeing from culpability with Confession and Absolution; he could only form his judgment according to what he saw. What he really saw was something that savored strongly of the open marketplace, a business where Confession played a very much subordinated role, especially since attritio was considered enough. Although Tetzel, who was commissioned for his special trade, and of whom Paulus treats in a monogravure (1889), later after his acquittal, taught that the indulgences "served solely in the case of punishment of sins that had been repented of and confessed," yet his instructions read, outside of indulgence for punishment of sin, of the plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio, and without repenting one could buy an indulgence upon the presentation of which any promiscuously chosen priest was forced once during lifetime and in the hour of death to grant to the professor a general absolution. [source]

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #8

St. Irenaeus believe in Sola Scriptura... Not so Fast my Friend

Back in July, somebody tried to tell me that St. Irenaeus held to the teaching of Sola Scriptura ; so I typed up an email to defend St. Ireneaus beliefs and showing he was far from believing in Sola Scriptura. I would like to share this with everyone. I would like to thank Robert Sungenis and all of his collaborators that put together an extensive study on Sola Scriptura, Not by Scripture Alone.

My friend said to me Irenaeus mainly mean Scripture when he used the word tradition by quoting Against Heresies 3:2:2. This is not true. When he used Tradition, he mean the whole deposit of faith in both written and unwritten form. If you read the whole quote, St. Irenaeus means more than Scripture because he said the traditions are preserved by the presbyters (not by Scripture). In addition, Irenaeus made a distinction between Scripture and Traditions in the last sentence.

"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."

Here is another quote from him that clearly shows that at times he made a distinction between Scripture and Traditions.

For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3:4:1)

You can also see in that quote is that Irenaeus believe that it is the Church that carries the entire deposit of the NT teachings from the apostles. You can see it clearer from what he wrote in the first half of the paragraph I just quoted.

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth."

Even the title of the chapter is, The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.

I totally agree that Scripture is the pillar and foundation of faith (as well as other Catholics), but Irenaeus beilieve you must have the correct interpretation of Scripture in order to know its true meaning.

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]. (ibid. 4:33:8)

The only way- Irenaeus believe- to hold to the true teachings that came from the apostles and get the true meaning of Scripture is if you are in the Church because the presbyters are the successors of the apostles and guards the deposit of faith.

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question othe knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequnce is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist...It behooves us to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church, and be brout up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church as been planted as a garden in the world: therefore says the Spirit of God, "Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden," that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord. (ibid. 5:20:2)

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church- those who, as I have shown, posess the succession form the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. (ibid. 4:26:2) (the title of this chapter is The reasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ; the true exposition of the Scriptures is to be found in the Church alone)

And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligentlyread the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostlic doctrine, as I have pointed out. (ibid. 4:32:1) (the title of this chapter is That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles)

These quotes from Irenaeus are very Catholic. He don't show he believe that people should follow Scripture alone or Scripture is the ultimate authority. He believe people should follow Scripture and Church authority because the full deposit of truth is in the Church. Even Phillip Shaff (Protestant in the nineteenth century put together the volume set of the Church Fathers writing) agree with me consernig the Church Fathers

The church view respection the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is furthe rdeveloped in particulars. The divine Scriptures of Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church (he is not talking about the Roman Catholic Church of course) from the apostles down, as posed to the varying opinions of the heretical sects- together form the one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key to true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.(History of the Christian Church pg 248-249; I believe it is in volume one)

There is a lot I can go through, but I'll end this with two more beliefs from Irenaeus that are in line with Catholic teaching. If anyone hold to Sola Scriptura and believe Irenaeus (and other Church Fathers) hold to it as well, you must believe Irenaeus got these beliefs from Scripture alone.

Apostolic succuesion and Primacy of Roman Church:

...[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of succession of bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on acconut of its pre-eminent authority, that is the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (ibid. 3:3:2)

Baptism:

“And dipped himself,” says [the Scripture], “seven times in Jordan.” It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Fragment 34)

From William Webster:

Irenaeus and Apostolic Tradition

"Irenaeus speaks often of tradition in his writings. He constantly referred to an apostolic tradition handed down to the Church which he called the canon of truth or the rule of faith. One of the most frequently quoted passages used to substantiate his belief and teaching of tradition is the following:"

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it...But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.2.

"It is not uncommon in Roman Catholic apologetic literature to see this particular passage quoted as confirmation of their concept of tradition. For example, under the heading of Sacred Tradition is a True Source of Revelation, listed in the Doctrinal Index of his book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, William Jurgens cites it to support this point of view. Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, in Not By Scripture Alone, also gives the above quote and then makes this comment:"

Obviously, Irenaeus believes not only in Scripture, but in thetradition that originates from the apostles. Moreover, Irenaeus also believes in the perpetuation of that tradition through the unbroken succession of presbyters (bishops and priests) in the Churches. How can Irenaeus be teaching that the oral tradition of the apostles was retired if he believes that the presbyters preserve it by means of successive generations...Catholics and Protestants accept as fact that after the first century God ceased the charism of divine inspiration. Hence Irenaeus is not saying that the preservation and perpetuation of the apostles’ oral tradition was retired, but only that the charism of inspiration had ceased. If anything, Irenaeus is assuring us that responsible and qualified men had systematically preserved the apostles’ orally inspired messages. Thus we have further proof of an unwritten Tradition that existed alongside the written Scripture in the life of the Church.

Not By Scripture Alone, pp. 296–297.

"Clearly, then, Roman Catholics employ the teaching of Irenaeus to support their own doctrine of tradition—doctrine which they claim is handed down orally from the apostles and is independent of Scripture. This position, however, is untenable when the teaching of Irenaeus is interpreted in context. The above quote (by Sungenis) is taken out of context. This quote is preceded by a lengthy statement defining what Irenaeus meant by tradition. That passage reads:"

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.1.

"Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he callsthis faith from the apostles and their disciples. He then goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are primarily the cardinal truths of the Creed. And this faith, and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls the tradition. He puts it this way:"

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith...For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.1; I.10.2; I.10.1.

"So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.

(Irenaeus gives two other summaries of the faith: To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed (Ibid., Against Heresies III.4.2).
For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men, according to the will of the Father (Ibid., Against Heresies 4.33.7).)

Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the apostolic tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain oral in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus, the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture. Tradition is verified by Scripture; they are one and the same. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, there is no other body of doctrine, oral in nature and independent of Scripture. The tradition of the Church is simply that teaching which is grounded upon and derived from Scripture. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition reaches us by two means: Scripture and the preaching and teaching of the Church, preserved in purity by the succession of her bishops. Did Irenaeus believe this rendered Scripture insufficient? By no means, because oral proclamation of the truth is simply the public proclamation of the teaching of Scripture. It is Scriptural truth presented orally, just as the present day preacher preaches a message derived from Scripture. He is passing on truth orally. He is ‘'traditioning,’ that is, handing on truth. But the actual content of that teaching is the same as that which is found in Scripture."

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. Vol. 2 pp 26-29.

William Webster.