Early Church Worship

As with a great many other subjects, I was always taught and led to believe that the worship of the early church was in great part similar to the worship in my modern Pentecostal church. They, no doubt, raised their hand, sang praise choruses, shouted, screamed, ran the aisles, and had all the noise and drama that we have in our services.

If we look solely to the New Testament, we, however, do not find any indication that this is the case. None of the above is spoken of in any of the services of the Apostolic Church that we have recorded for us. Truthfully, however, we don’t have very detailed records of the services (with the exception of the sermons) in the inspired record. Most of the incidents are given in brief, synopsis form. Thus, we come away with the most important facts but are left to speculate on the details.

What we are given is a more detailed description of services a bit later on in Church History. We have accounts in The Didache, in the writings of Justin Martyr, and in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome that offer us some very important detail.

Since I have already talked about the worship instructions in the Didache, I will concentrate on the other two. The First Apology of Justin Martyr provides us with information on the worship of the early church. Since it was written to the Emperor, it is only a brief overview but provides some interesting details.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. [ANF 1: 185-6 ch. LXVII]

The service was reading, preaching, and communion. The Communion service has been detailed by Justin in previous chapters. This pattern of worship is based on the synagogue pattern of worship and follows the same general outline. Alexander Schmemann gives this telling tidbit: “No matter what disagreement may exist between the historians of the Christian cult, they all agree on the acceptance of a genetical (sic) link between this cult and the liturgical tradition of Judaism as it existed in that period.” [Introduction to Liturgical Theology, SVS Press p. 53]

What does this connection between the two types of worship mean? Let us hear what Schmemann says to that question:

It should be noted here in passing that the confirmation of this structural dependence of Christian upon Hebrew worship destroys the argument of those who are inclined to deny the existence of any “order” whatever in the early Church.” (p. 56)

The Apostolic Tradition by St. Hippolytus of Rome (the text of which can be found at http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html)was written early in the 3rd Century. It gives a detailed account of priestly, diaconal, and episcopal ordinations as well as, an order of service (so to speak) This writing, like The Didache, gives us the prayers that are to be prayed over the Communion.

The conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that the early Christians did indeed have a form as far as their worship is concerned. This is not to say that they were dead, dry or formal in the pejorative sense of the word. It does mean that they did ot make up a new service every time they got together. Another passage from A. Schmemann serves as an excellent conclusion to this matter:

The opinion has been held that early Christian worship was “charismatic” by nature and has a sort of ecstatic, fluid character which excluded the possibility of any fixed structure, of any unchangeable liturgical Ordo….]T]he comparative study of liturgical forms has led to the conclusion that the charismatic gifts did not exclude :rule” and that an Ordo, in the sense of a general structure, was indeed adopted by Christianity from Judaism.” (p 56)

While this may be hard for some to accept, it is nonetheless well attested by the facts of history and the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Rather than the Church progressing into cold formalism from Charismatic flames, it would seem that the wild flames overcame the order and beauty of the liturgy. Instead of coming up with a new and more exciting service each time they met, it is clear that the early Christians had a set order which they inherited from Judaism.

Baptism: The Ante-Nicene View

We examined the writings of some of the Early Christians in our last post. While, as I stated, many more similar texts could be adduced from the Ante-Nicene period, those I gave are representative. The question we must consider is what do all these references tell us about their baptismal doctrine.

First to be noted is the various names and descriptive titles given to baptism. It is called a “seal,” “illumination,” and “purifying.” It is “the water and laver of regeneration” as well as the “washing with water.” It is also called the “laver of repentance.”

More importantly we should note what exactly these passages say occurs in the rite of baptism. Before we do, however, let me give a brief synopsis of what I have been taught. It will probably be much the same as many of the readers.

When a person is convicted of his/her sins, he/she responds to an altar call or to a more personal inner call if not in a service. They then pray and repent of their sins (in our tradition this is usually accompanied by crying and such while at a mourner’s bench—which we erroneously call the “altar”). After the person has “prayed through” (a totally unbiblical term), we then allow them to be baptized in water. What occurs in baptism? Succinctly, one gets wet. From our point of view, not much else happens. After all, the person has already “gotten saved.”

Thus, baptism in my Pentecostal tradition is an act of obedience to Christ who told us to be baptized that accomplishes nothing in particular. No grace is imparted; no seal, no illumination. We obey Jesus and witness to our former salvation by being dipped in the water. We are symbolically buried and raised again because this has taken place previous to the baptism in reality.

But shock of all shocks, this is nothing like what the Early Church wrote about baptism. What did they say? In baptism, a man “lays aside his deadness, and obtains life.” When we are baptized, “we are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil.” We are regenerated and receive “the second birth, which occurs in baptism.” In fact, we “receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration”

In our tradition, baptism is viewed as an adjunct of salvation. Many feel that it is not necessary for a person to be baptized. But look at the attitude of the aforementioned early saints. Justin Martyr tells us the “very baptism which he [Isaiah] announced is alone able to purify those who have repented.” St. Cyprian states plainly that “unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God.”

Many of the writers of the period tie baptism to a Scripture that I have never heard anyone in my tradition tie to it. That passage is John 3:5 “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This verse was always explained to refer to two births—one physical (water) and one spiritual. That explanation makes very little sense. If one has not had a physical birth, he or she would not be a person at all. So why would Jesus make that one of the criteria for the Kingdom.

The ancient writers explained that the two things mentioned together comprise the one new birth. One comes to the new birth by the water of baptism and the power of the Holy Spirit. Like many other passages, this one seemed to become suddenly understandable when I read this explanation. It was an interpretation which was much more genuine and less forced. And besides, whose explanation is more credible—the many Early Church fathers or the modern writers?

So what does all this say about the necessity of baptism? Do these writers see it as just a good thing but not really important or necessary? I will let Tertullian answer with the following:

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some…. And so they say, “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.” But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law.” [ANF 3: 676-6]

I will close with the Introduction from Tertullian’s treatise On Baptism:

Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water! [ANF 3:669]

One can only imagine how many little fishes have been killed by taking them away from the water!

Early Christians on Baptism

The subject of baptism was one to which I had never given much consideration. In the tradition in which I was raised, baptism was considered to be of little real significance. It was mentioned and practiced but almost as an auxiliary to the salvation experience itself and most certainly not as an integral part of that experience.

Having been taught that we were the same church that Jesus started, I had (without ever having studied the matter) accepted uncritically that the Apostolic Church had a view of baptism that was consonant with ours. The other ideas about this subject were summarily relegated to the “Catholic accretions” closet.

When I actually dared to “take up and read” the Early Church Fathers, I was amazed at what I found. The ideas I had been taught were radically different from those espoused by these earlier saints. Although I will in no wise exhaust all the references from that period, I wanted to share a number of representative excerpts. I thought that I would just post these without intervening comments and let the texts speak for themselves. (All the quotes are from The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Shepherd of Hermas (2:49)

"For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor (2: 216-7)

Our transgressions being taken away by one Pœonian medicine, the baptism of the Word. We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing.

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor (2: 215)

Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal.

Theophilus of Antioch Theophilus to Autolycus (2: 101)

Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.

Irenaeus of Lyon (1:574 Fragment XXXIV)

“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: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Justin Martyr (First Apology 1:183 ch. LXI)

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” …. And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed….

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 1:201 ch. XIV)

“By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life."

Tertullian (On Baptism ch. XIII 3:676)

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,”
has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.

Cyprian (Book III 5:542)

Heading 25 That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God.

Heading 26 That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works.

Epistle of Firmilian of Caesarea to Cyprian (5:393)

For the second birth, which occurs in baptism, begets sons of God.

Lactantius (The Divine Institutes Book V ch. 5 7:201)

Man is born mortal; but that he afterwards becomes immortal, when he begins to live in conformity with the will of God, that is, to follow righteousness, which is comprised in the worship of God, since God raised man to a view of the heaven and of Himself. And this takes place when man, purified in the heavenly laver, lays aside his infancy together with all the pollution of his past life, and having received an increase of divine vigour, becomes a perfect and complete man.

These quotes lead us to an understanding of baptism that is a far cry from anything I have been taught previously. And as I stated previously they are only a small sample of which many more examples could quickly be adduced.

Apocryphal Appreciation 2

Since I am sure that many are just as I was (ignorant about the Apocrypha), I decided to share some powerful passages from the Deuterocanicals. I hope that this will encourage some of the readers to pick up a copy of these books (they are available in a separate book or in a complete Bible) and to peruse them.

For all of the quotes below, I have chosen to use the King James Version of the Apocrypha.

The book of Jesus the Son of Sirach speaks forcefully to the false impressions that many are suffering under today because of dreams and visions:

The hopes of a man void of understanding are vain and false: and dreams lift up fools. Whoso regardeth dreams is like him that catcheth at a shadow, and followeth after the wind. The vision of dreams is the resemblance of one thing to another, even as the likeness of a face to a face. Of an unclean thing what can be cleansed? and from that thing which is false what truth can come? Divinations, and soothsayings, and dreams, are vain: and the heart fancieth, as a woman's heart in travail. If they be not sent from the most High in thy visitation, set not thy heart upon them. For dreams have deceived many, and they have failed that put their trust in them. (Sirach 34:1-7)

This passage is certainly needed in a day when this kind of thing is rampant and so many are following their dream-induced delusions.

A wonderful section concerning sorrow is also found in Sirach:

My son, let tears fall down over the dead, and begin to lament, as if thou hadst suffered great harm thyself; and then cover his body according to the custom, and neglect not his burial. Weep bitterly, and make great moan, and use lamentation, as he is worthy, and that a day or two, lest thou be evil spoken of: and then comfort thyself for thy heaviness. For of heaviness cometh death, and the heaviness of the heart breaketh strength. In affliction also sorrow remaineth: and the life of the poor is the curse of the heart. Take no heaviness to heart: drive it away, and member the last end. Forget it not, for there is no turning again: thou shalt not do him good, but hurt thyself. Remember my judgment: for thine also shall be so; yesterday for me, and to day for thee. When the dead is at rest, let his remembrance rest; and be comforted for him, when his Spirit is departed from him. (38:16-23)

And this one on death is excellent for a funeral setting:

O death, how bitter is the remembrance of thee to a man that liveth at rest in his possessions, unto the man that hath nothing to vex him, and that hath prosperity in all things: yea, unto him that is yet able to receive meat! O death, acceptable is thy sentence unto the needy, and unto him whose strength faileth, that is now in the last age, and is vexed with all things, and to him that despaireth, and hath lost patience! Fear not the sentence of death, remember them that have been before thee, and that come after; for this is the sentence of the Lord over all flesh. And why art thou against the pleasure of the most High? there is no inquisition in the grave, whether thou have lived ten, or an hundred, or a thousand years. (Sir 41:1-4)

Also useful in the same type of setting is the passage from Wisdom 3: 1-9:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality. And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect.

The book of Second Maccabees (7: 1-42) contains the story of a mother and her seven sons who were martyred rather than give up their faith. It is a great encouragement to those who are facing persecution and the temptation to give up the fight.

In Tobit 13:1-17 there is a very beautiful prayer by the title character. The additions to the book of Esther add much to the story and make it more understandable and readable by filling in some information that is left out of the Hebrew version.

These are only a few of the magnificent things contained in the Apocrypha. It is replete with sage wisdom, inspiring stories, and edifying words. I am just sorry that it took me so long to discover all the treasures that were stored there all along, if I had only taken time and interest to look.

Apocryphal Appreciation

For most of my Christian life, I was blissfully ignorant of a group of books known variously as the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanonicals. They were never mentioned in church, they were largely unknown by the people I knew and I had never read a single one of them. None of the Bibles that I had or had seen contained these books.

We used the King James Version almost exclusively and no KJV had any of these books. I, therefore, concluded that they were some “Catholic” additions to the Bible. It is not that we were taught that but we weren’t taught anything at all about them. When I finally picked up a Bible (New English Bible) that had them, I didn’t read the additions.

What I was later to find out was that these were not additions but had been subtractions. And the much-beloved KJV had originally contained the Apocrypha until it had been removed for at least partially economic reasons.

It is important for us to know what the Early Church thought of these 14 books. We know that the Jews excluded them from their Bibles around 90 A. D. But we should not take the ideas of the Jewish authorities above the ideas of the Christian authorities.

One indication of the attitude of the Fathers is found in the fact that in the Ante-Nicene Fathers there are “over 300 quotations and references to the deuterocanonical books.” (Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 207)

If that were all then we might not put much stock in this fact simply because they also quoted the pagan poets. But we won’t stop there. There are many instances where the Early Fathers explicitly state that certain Apocryphal books are Scripture.

Clement of Alexandria in his book The Instructor refers to the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach (a.k.a., Ecclesiasticus) as Scripture as follows:

“Whence the Scripture most strenuously exhorts, “Introduce not every one into thy house, for the snares of the crafty are many.” (Sirach 11:29) And in another place, “Let just men be thy guests, and in the fear of the Lord let thy boast remain.” (Sirach 9:16) [ANF 2:278]

St. Cyprian of Carthage also says the same of the Book of Tobit: “And thus Holy Scripture instructs us, saying, “Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving.” (Tobit 20:8) [ANF 5:456]

The Banquet of the Ten Virgins by Methodius has the following to say about the Wisdom of Solomon:

“And in the Book of Wisdom, a book full of all virtue, the Holy Spirit, now openly drawing His hearers to continence and chastity, sings on this wise, “Better it is to have no children, and to have virtue, for the memorial thereof is immortal; because it is known with God and with men. When it is present men take example at it; and when it is gone they desire it: it weareth a crown and triumpheth for ever, having gotten the victory, striving for undefiled rewards.” (Wis. 4:1, 2) [ANF: 6: 312]

Origen denominates the book of Maccabees as Scripture in De Prinipis:

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, “I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.” (2 Macc. 7:28.) [ANF 4: 270]

While this by no stretch covers all the books of the Apocrypha, it also does not cover all the references in the Fathers to various books as Scripture. What should also be noted is that while some of the books may not be explicitly called Scripture, they are quoted and used in lists with verses from canonical books. They are treated in the same manner as the canonical quotes and not separated or spoken of differently.

The Fathers also tell us something that not many people want to acknowledge today: why these books were removed by the Jewish authorities.

And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. [Justyn Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1:234]

The same sentiment is echoed by Tertullian in his On the Apparel of Women

By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. [ANF 4:16]

While this passage specifically refers to the Book of Enoch, which is not accepted today and was only partially accepted ever, it is applicable to all the Apocrypha.

I think it is pretty clear that much of the Early Church considered the Apocrypha as Scripture and, therefore, they used it as such. Why do we reject these books that they accepted? Well, it goes back to a word that I have used so much: tradition. Theirs accepted these books; ours rejects them. Now, whom are we going to trust? I still like the idea of humbly accepting the earlier ideas of the Church instead of making it up as I go along.

Communion Horror

Consider the following quote:

“What kind of bread do you use for communion?
Over the years we've used the prepackaged wafers, matzah etc. Yesterday however we served goldfish crackers and grape juice. I am sure that the purists were upset, but we also had a baby dedication and were talking about the harvest, so I thought the goldfish were in good taste (so to speak).

Anybody ever use goldfish before?? i think we will do it again.”

The above quote is taken from a discussion forum made up of mostly Church of God (Cleveland, TN) persons. I have been a member for some time but rarely drop by and read it—and now I remember why.

This passage made me almost literally, physically sick. The very sacrilegious attitude displayed toward the Holy Supper is unbelievable. This person (a pastor I might add) has completely trivialized the Holy Sacrament. And much to my amazement there was very little rebuttal and a great deal of positive words toward this horrendous act.

Another pastor poster even had the impudence to say that the frosted circus crackers would be a good substitute. One hopes he was trying to be facetious (if that was his aim he failed miserably by joking about something which is certainly no joking matter); from his tone, however, I seriously doubt he was.

This has made me seriously question whether I can be in communion with a group that would allow such unholy desecration and heretical profanation of the Sacrament. I certainly would never take any such false communion myself. I cannot understand how our bishops can allow such a thing to continue. What would lead someone to so trivialize this most sacred act?

And then it hit me once again very hard: This is NOT the way the Church throughout the ages has believed or approached things. This is NOT the Apostolic doctrine or practice. It resembled in no way orthodoxy or orthopraxy.

Can anyone even imagine Justin Martyr calling goldfish crackers “the sacrifice which we offer?” Or Cyril of Jerusalem teaching the catechumens that goldfish crackers are “our supersubstantial bread?” What about St. Ignatius telling the Ephesians that partaking of goldfish “with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ?” (ANF 1:57)

It is for certain that none of these things could have ever happened.

It is not even up for question as to what was used in the First Communion Service—bread and wine. Now people can argue all day about unleavened v. leavened and wine v. juice but it is quite clear that it was bread and fruit of the vine. If we are to do things as Jesus commanded us, then we cannot change the elements to suit our tastes, the whims of our times, or even our congregations.

How inane it is for someone to even discuss the concept of taste when it comes to Communion. Does the bread taste better or worse? That is inconsequential. Jesus used bread; we shouldn’t seek to change it for the sake of taste or aesthetics.

It is clear from what I’ve said, I’m pretty upset over this matter. I just cannot believe it. Well, actually I can. With no guidance from the Church’s tradition or history, all kinds of deviations and blasphemy are not only possible but also probable. Lord, have mercy! When one throws out the sacredness of the sacred things, then nothing is safe. What next? And (although I don't want the answer), whither from here?

Sola Scriptura Again

Saint Vincent of Lérins in his masterpiece imposingly titled The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins, For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, gives many sound principles which are germane to the whole discussion of Sola Scriptura. I am well aware that his opposition to Augustine’s doctrine of predestination places him outside the Reformed ideological camp. This, however, is not a negative towards him when he is considered by those who are not of a Calvinist bent.

We have already encountered St. Vincent in the post Scriptural Interpretation. He gave us an exact delineation of what is truly the doctrine of the Church; viz., that which has universality, antiquity and consent.

Now let us consider some more of St. Vincent’s powerful words:

But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. (Commonitory chapter XXVII--NPNF211:152)

After explaining how heretical teachers make use (misuse) of the Scriptures, St. Vincent then poses the question as to how one might distinguish between the abuse and the proper us of the Bible. In other words, if every group appeals to the Bible for support (and most do), how is one to know which is the proper and true interpretation? The answer he gives takes the reader back to the same answer he gave about determining true doctrine—we resort to the tradition of the Church, that which has universality, antiquity and consent.

If one does not rely on the Church and its Tradition, he/she is left to freefall into all type of heresies. Without this safeguard, one might adopt Arianism (as Joel Hemphill did), Mormonism, or any of a million other heretical stands and still feel justified by Scripture. Without the guide of tradition, there is no way to say who is right and who is wrong or even if anyone is right or wrong.

In the same vein, St. Vincent writes in Chapter XXIX:

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church’s belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of all Catholic doctrine rest. (Commonitory chapter XXIX—NPNF211:153)

The erroneous notion that tradition does away with the Scripture is refuted here. It is not that one can have either tradition or Scripture; one has both of these God-given tools to determine the Truth. There are many who are “interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion. That is the reason there are so many different denominations and independent churches. If the Scripture was self-interpreting, so clear as not to need an interpreter and spoke to every question, we would not need tradition at all. This is not the case. Therefore, we need some help, some guide to save us from ourselves and our highly subjective feelings, emotions and opinions.

Without the Tradition, what is there to reign in wild subjectivism in Scriptural interpretation? How would one say with any definiteness what is heresy and what is not? What would be our argument against ridiculous fantastical assertions about the meaning of certain verses? How do we argue with the Mormons about the Baptism for the dead (I Corinthians 15:29), if not from Tradition-interpreted Scripture?

These are only a few of the questions that present themselves if we follow a Sola Scriptura mantra. Since we’ve already seen that everyone has some tradition by which he/she interprets Scripture, we should make sure we are following the one that is as St. Vincent outlines—the one with universality, antiquity, and consent.