"Furthermore, that the body of tradition is not of divine origin nor apostolic is proven by the fact that some traditions contradict others. The church fathers repeatedly contradict one another. When a Roman Catholic priest is ordained he solemnly vows to interpret the Scriptures only according to 'the unanimous consent' of the fathers. But such 'unanimous consent' is purely a myth. The fact is they scarcely agree on any doctrine. They contradict each other, and even contradict themselves as they change their minds and affirm what they previously had denied. Augustine, the greatest of the fathers, in his later life wrote a special book in which he set forth his Retractions. Some of the fathers of the second century held that Christ would return shortly and that he would personally reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But two of the best known scholars of the early church, Origen (185-254) and Augustine (354-430) wrote against that view. The early fathers condemned the use of images in worship, while later ones approve such use. The early church almost unanimously advocated the reading and free use of the Scriptures, while later ones restricted such reading and use. Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome and the greatest of the early bishops, denounced the assumption of the title of Universal Bishop as anti-Christian. But later Popes even to the present have been very insistent of using that and similar titles which assert universal authority. Where, then, is the universal tradition and unanimous consent of the fathers to papal doctrine?"
– Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), pp. 78-79
Thoughts?
"Furthermore, that the body of tradition is not of divine origin nor apostolic is proven by the fact that some traditions contradict others. The church fathers repeatedly contradict one another."
Since when? Her citations must be pretty creative.
"When a Roman Catholic priest is ordained he solemnly vows to interpret the Scriptures only according to 'the unanimous consent' of the fathers. But such 'unanimous consent' is purely a myth."
Unaninimous consent = that which the Fathers agree on.
"The fact is they scarcely agree on any doctrine."
It's true that they don't agree on everything, but it's total BS to use the qualifier "scarcely."
"They contradict each other, and even contradict themselves as they change their minds and affirm what they previously had denied. Augustine, the greatest of the fathers, in his later life wrote a special book in which he set forth his Retractions."
Development of doctrine, anyone? This is something the Orthodox really dislike, claiming that the entirety of our understanding of God and religion was uncovered by the end of the Patristic period.
"Some of the fathers of the second century held that Christ would return shortly and that he would personally reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But two of the best known scholars of the early church, Origen (185-254) and Augustine (354-430) wrote against that view."
Again, development of doctrine.
"The early fathers condemned the use of images in worship, while later ones approve such use."I'd really like to see the citations on this one. Sweeping statements like "The early fathers (blah)" are almost always criminal oversimplifications."The early church almost unanimously advocated the reading and free use of the Scriptures, while later ones restricted such reading and use." Again, it'd be nice to find citations.
"Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome and the greatest of the early bishops, denounced the assumption of the title of Universal Bishop as anti-Christian. But later Popes even to the present have been very insistent of using that and similar titles which assert universal authority."
Okay, this is a bunch of BS. St. Gregory the Great (590-604) denounced the use of the title Ecumenical Patriarch (*not* Universal Bishop), because the Patriarch of Constantinople was getting uppity and champing at his bit, the rein attached from which being firmly grasped by Rome. Judging purely on how ultramontane Gregory the Great seemed to act, making clear doctrinal definitions and being all Popish, it follows that he condemned the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" because the Bishop of Rome had been claiming to be the holder of the primary see, with authority over the others for a long time (since, oh, AD 96, with the Letter of Clement), and very clearly and explicitly by almost every Pope since St. Leo the Great (440-461), most notably St. Gelasius (492-496).
"Where, then, is the universal tradition and unanimous consent of the fathers to papal doctrine?"
See above. Also, take a look at a few of these gems from the East, where they like to forget about these Fathers:
St. John Cassian (360-435), begging for orthodox relief from Nestorianism: "That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God."
Stephen, Bishop of Dora (Palestine), writing to Martin I (649-655): "And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair which rules and presides over all (ex cathedra?), I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority …..And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine."
(It is interesting to note that the Greek calendar honors Martin I twice, and their Office refers to him as "'infallibilis fidei magister' because he was the successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome," according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Martin I)
Sergius, Metropolitan Archbishop of Cyprus, 649: "O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed."
Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople: "Without whom (the Romans) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."
These are just a few of the dozens of zingers regarding the authority of the Pope, which far outweigh in number the texts from Fathers who denied Petrine and Roman supremacy.
I’m sorry, Loraine Boettner’s a man. My mistake.
No comment other then that Loraine Boettner can be totally ignored. That book is so full of mistakes and historical innacuracies that it would take an even larger book to address them all. He provides no footnotes or sources for his statements which is really not surprising for a notorious anti-Catholic.