According to Irenaeus, his opponents’ response to the charge that their teaching is not to be found in Scripture is simply to assert that these Scriptures are not authoritative, that they are inadequate for full knowledge, that they are ambiguous and need to be interpreted in the light of tradition which is not handed down in writing but orally.
"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world... we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings... 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 the 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 the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3
St. Irenaeus (above) points to the church in Rome as the preeminent authority of the Church, and that all other churches should consult and agree with its traditions to avoid heresy. Some of St. Irenaeus' pronouncements may sound Protestant, but clearly he was a Catholic, as no Protestant would utter the above sentence. He also recognized the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and of St. Mary, Our Blessed Mother, as the New Eve.
But to your point, yes, no tradition should be considered sacred if it conflicts with Holy Scripture. This is why Catholics throughout the ages have developed sound scriptural justifications for all Catholic doctrines. Protestants would disagree with the soundness of such justifications, but they cannot in good faith claim that Catholics reject the Holy Bible or the Gospels.
"Irenaeus is writing against the Marcions and the Gnostics. But, admittedly, (and I have to say it): doesn’t this sound quite a bit like the arguments of a sola scriptura protestant?"
I actually think this sounds more like Catholics and Orthodox. I haven't ever heard a Protestant say that we should regard a kind of oral tradition.
Irenaeus is probably my favorite early church father. He sounds very "evangelical" to me, and he was an early premillennialist.
For me to understand the Scriptural/tradition concept, it would be helpful to see specific examples.
His premillennarian views are interesting. It is also interesting that the Catholic Church has not developed a specific doctrine on this. Generally Catholics are amillennialist and partial preterist, following the tradition of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, but this belief is not required. You can be a premillennarian and a Catholic.
It seems like such an important thing that the Holy Bible has left so open to interpretation. I guess we're all supposed to focus more on our own lives and faith, and not worry about God's overarching plans for His Creation, and to just trust that He has it under control, and that His plan will be the best possible.
I am coming to learn just how dependent we are on tradition to understanding Scripture. There are countless verses / passages that can be supportive of almost any false belief absent the filtering work of learned, godly men (guided by the Holy Spirit) to aid us in our understanding.
A long time ago I concluded that the understanding of those closer to the time and place of the apostles understood the culture and language far better than we do. Not to say they got everything right ("they" weren't always of one uniform opinion, after all).
Still, test all against Scripture, but when in doubt, the work done in the first centuries after Christ is invaluable.
"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world... we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings... 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 the 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 the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3
St. Irenaeus (above) points to the church in Rome as the preeminent authority of the Church, and that all other churches should consult and agree with its traditions to avoid heresy. Some of St. Irenaeus' pronouncements may sound Protestant, but clearly he was a Catholic, as no Protestant would utter the above sentence. He also recognized the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and of St. Mary, Our Blessed Mother, as the New Eve.
But to your point, yes, no tradition should be considered sacred if it conflicts with Holy Scripture. This is why Catholics throughout the ages have developed sound scriptural justifications for all Catholic doctrines. Protestants would disagree with the soundness of such justifications, but they cannot in good faith claim that Catholics reject the Holy Bible or the Gospels.
"Irenaeus is writing against the Marcions and the Gnostics. But, admittedly, (and I have to say it): doesn’t this sound quite a bit like the arguments of a sola scriptura protestant?"
I actually think this sounds more like Catholics and Orthodox. I haven't ever heard a Protestant say that we should regard a kind of oral tradition.
Irenaeus is probably my favorite early church father. He sounds very "evangelical" to me, and he was an early premillennialist.
For me to understand the Scriptural/tradition concept, it would be helpful to see specific examples.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
If I am reading his quote correctly, it is his opponents who are saying oral tradition should guide.
His premillennarian views are interesting. It is also interesting that the Catholic Church has not developed a specific doctrine on this. Generally Catholics are amillennialist and partial preterist, following the tradition of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, but this belief is not required. You can be a premillennarian and a Catholic.
It seems like such an important thing that the Holy Bible has left so open to interpretation. I guess we're all supposed to focus more on our own lives and faith, and not worry about God's overarching plans for His Creation, and to just trust that He has it under control, and that His plan will be the best possible.
John Henry Newman and St Vincent of Lerins are both touch on this. Tradition should go hand in hand with scripture and form guardrails for the Church.
I also frequently remind myself that for now, we see many things in a mirror dimly.
I am coming to learn just how dependent we are on tradition to understanding Scripture. There are countless verses / passages that can be supportive of almost any false belief absent the filtering work of learned, godly men (guided by the Holy Spirit) to aid us in our understanding.
A long time ago I concluded that the understanding of those closer to the time and place of the apostles understood the culture and language far better than we do. Not to say they got everything right ("they" weren't always of one uniform opinion, after all).
Still, test all against Scripture, but when in doubt, the work done in the first centuries after Christ is invaluable.
Well said