Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition (325–1054 AD)

Introduction

The Christian Church of the fourth to eleventh centuries held Scripture in the highest esteem while also venerating the authoritative Tradition passed down from the Apostles. The Reformation slogan sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) — the idea that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith — was formulated many centuries later. This study examines whether the Church Fathers and councils from the post-Nicaea era (after 325 AD) up to the East–West Schism of 1054 adhered to a principle akin to sola scriptura or whether they embraced a dual authority of Scripture and Tradition. We will analyze primary sources in detail, including original-language nuances where necessary, and engage modern scholarship on the topic. Key figures like St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Maximus the Confessor will be considered, as well as the decrees of ecumenical councils. Regional theological differences (Alexandrian vs. Antiochene vs. Latin) will be compared to see how they influenced understandings of authority. We will also address Protestant apologetic claims that elements of sola scriptura existed in this era, evaluating these against the historical record. Furthermore, we'll trace how conciliar decisions and doctrinal developments shaped the Church's view on authority, and assess whether differing approaches to Scripture and Tradition contributed to the growing tensions between East and West that culminated in the Great Schism. An appendix will summarize key patristic and conciliar statements on Scripture and Tradition for quick reference.

Scripture and Tradition in the Post-Nicene Church Fathers

Early Christian leaders consistently affirmed the divine authority of Holy Scripture, yet they simultaneously upheld Sacred Tradition – the teachings and practices handed down in the Church. Rather than viewing Scripture and Tradition as opposing sources, the Fathers saw them as complementary. Many Fathers taught that the rule of faith (regula fidei), essentially the core apostolic Tradition often embodied in creeds, was the framework within which Scripture was interpreted (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). In this section, we examine what prominent Fathers wrote regarding biblical authority and the role of ecclesial tradition.

St. Basil the Great (329–379) – Written and Unwritten Tradition

As bishop of Caesarea, Basil contended with heretics who demanded explicit Scriptural proof for every doctrine. In his treatise On the Holy Spirit (375 AD), Basil defends the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, appealing not only to Scripture but also to the Church's unwritten teachings. He laments that the "one aim" of their opponents is "to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by leveling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it", rejecting the Church's unwritten teachings (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). Against those who "clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers," Basil staunchly replies: "We will not slacken in our defense of the truth" (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). He argues that the Lord and the apostles delivered some teachings in Scripture and others "by the unwritten tradition of the Fathers," and both are "of equal force" for the faith (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). Basil gives concrete examples of apostolic traditions not explicitly found in Scripture: the sign of the cross, the Eastward orientation in prayer, the words invoking the Holy Trinity in baptism, etc. If one tried to eliminate these unwritten customs, Basil says, "we would fatally mutilate the Gospel", even if the intention was to honor Scripture (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). He declares it "apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions" of the Church (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). In a famous passage, Basil challenges his opponents: since they object that the doxology "with the Spirit" lacks written warrant, they should produce a biblical proof for the Trinitarian confession itself. "The very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – what is its written source?" he asks pointedly (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). Indeed, the biblical canon had no single proof-text of the Nicene Creed; it was the consolidated apostolic Tradition that taught Christians to baptize in the Trine name and confess the Triune God. Thus, Basil concludes that "while the unwritten traditions are so many and their bearing on the mystery of godliness is so important, can they [the heretics] refuse to allow us a single word ['with the Spirit'] which has come down to us from the Fathers?" (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). Clearly, St. Basil esteemed Scripture as authoritative, but he insisted that the Church's traditional teachings and practices (the "unwritten mysteries") were normative and binding, not optional add-ons (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)).

Notably, Basil's approach does not diminish Scripture – he frequently bases doctrines on biblical texts – but he denies that Christians should "abandon the tradition which guided [us] to the light" of Christ (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). Basil underscores that the opponents' refusal to accept anything not verbatim in Scripture actually undermines the faith. By contrast, Basil "holds fast" to the teachings received at baptism and urges others to do the same (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). His robust defense of Tradition helped the Church articulate the doctrine of the Trinity beyond the bare words of Scripture, showing how Tradition safeguards the correct interpretation of Scripture.

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) – "It Is Tradition, Seek No Further"

John Chrysostom, renowned Archbishop of Constantinople, was a prodigious Bible commentator who constantly exhorted Christians to read Scripture. At first glance, one might assume him a champion of sola scriptura because of his emphasis on Scripture's clarity and sufficiency for instruction. Indeed, Chrysostom taught that "all things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain" (Homily 3 on 2 Thessalonians). Yet, Chrysostom also acknowledged the necessity of apostolic tradition as the context for understanding Scripture. Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ("hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle"), Chrysostom makes one of the clearest patristic statements equating written and oral apostolic teaching: "Hence it is manifest, that [the apostles] did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore, let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no further. (CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom))**. In other words, the apostles transmitted the faith through both Scripture and oral instruction; the Church preserves both, and Chrysostom insists we should trust the Church's Tradition just as we trust Scripture.

Chrysostom himself appealed to unwritten ecclesial traditions. For example, regarding the Eucharist, he noted Paul handed down a mixture of written instructions and reliable custom. Chrysostom's reverence for tradition is rooted in his understanding that the Church is the guardian of the apostolic deposit. While Scripture is fully true and sufficient to "declare the truth", as he elsewhere affirms, it must be read within the Church. He knew from experience that heretics also quoted Scripture; thus the Church's tradition was the guide to right interpretation (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). In one homily, Chrysostom remarks that the heretics also have the gospel text, but "we have the understanding of the Scriptures through the correct tradition passed on by the Fathers" (Homily on 2 Thess. 2:15, paraphrase). This aligns with his teaching that the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) is the Church, not the text alone.

By saying "it is tradition, seek no further," Chrysostom was not dismissing Scripture – rather, he was clarifying that some authentic Christian teachings come via the Church's continuous practice and do not require additional biblical proof. This stands in harmony with his overall ministry: Chrysostom constantly preached from the Bible, yet always as interpreted in the ecclesial community. He never advocates private judgment apart from the received faith of the Church.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) – The Church as Guardian and Interpreter of Scripture

In the Latin West, no voice is more influential than St. Augustine's on issues of authority. Augustine held an extremely high view of Scripture's inspiration and truth; he famously said if he finds something in Scripture that seems erroneous, "I would not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)), indicating the Church's authority led him to trust Scripture in the first place. That statement, from Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (c. 397), is telling. Augustine was arguing with the Manichaean heretics, who rejected parts of the New Testament. He basically flips their argument: Augustine himself believes the Gospel only because the Catholic Church's authority commended it to him (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)). Therefore, if that same authoritative Church tells him not to believe Manichaeus's "new gospel," he will obey her rather than accept an unauthenticated teaching (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)). Augustine's logic underscores that Scripture's authority was inseparable from the Church's authority – the Church identified which writings are truly Gospel, preserved them, and interprets them rightly (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)). This single sentence ("I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church") has been called "one of the earliest distinct assertions of the Catholic rule of faith" (Philip Schaff: NPNF1-04. Augustine). It certainly refutes any idea that Augustine believed in Scripture apart from the Church. On the contrary, he considered the two inextricably linked: the Church does not "make" Scripture true, but her Tradition and authority safeguard the truth of Scripture and offer the trustworthy guide to its interpretation.

Augustine explicitly acknowledged apostolic traditions beyond Scripture. In On Baptism against the Donatists, he addresses infant baptism – a practice not explicitly commanded in Scripture. He writes: "If any one seeks for divine authority in this matter, although what is held by the whole Church, and not as instituted by councils but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority…" ( Philip Schaff: NPNF1-04. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) ( Philip Schaff: NPNF1-04. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). Here Augustine argues that the universal practice of infant baptism (and of having sponsors answer for infants) must have originated with the apostles, even if not recorded in Scripture, because it is held by the whole Church without a known origin in any later council ( Philip Schaff: NPNF1-04. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). This shows Augustine’s criteria: antiquity and universal acceptance signal an apostolic Tradition. Such traditions, Augustine affirms, possess “divine authority” inasmuch as they derive from the Apostles ( Philip Schaff: NPNF1-04. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). Likewise, in a letter to Januarius, Augustine differentiates between written scriptural precepts and those practices observed by the whole Church that “do not derive from Scripture but from tradition.” Those universal observances, he says, “were ordained by the apostles themselves or by plenary councils” ( Varietates Legitimae 26: Sacramentals and Sacraments | Catholic Sensibility). To “doubt” or spurn such universal customs would be “the most unheard-of madness” (St. Augustine - Letter to Januarius | Catholic Culture Audiobooks) ( Varietates Legitimae 26: Sacramentals and Sacraments | Catholic Sensibility). Examples Augustine gives include the worldwide practice of fasting on certain days, the form of sacramental rites, or the celebration of Easter – matters on which Scripture is not explicit, but the consensus of apostolic churches provides a reliable rule.

Moreover, Augustine held that even correct interpretation of Scripture requires deference to the Church’s teaching authority. In debating heretics, he appeals to the “rule of faith” (regula fidei) – essentially the creed and fundamental tradition – as the lens through which ambiguous biblical passages must be understood. For instance, confronting the Arian interpretation of John 1:1, Augustine said one must hold to the Church’s confession of Christ’s divinity and interpret accordingly, rather than twist Scripture against that rule (see On the Trinity, Book I). He also believed that ecumenical councils could settle the interpretation of Scripture in contested matters. Famously, on the issue of the Donatist schism, Augustine remarked, “the debate is ended. Two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have come. The matter is closed” (Sermon 131, paraphrase). This illustrates how, for Augustine, the Church’s magisterium (especially with Rome’s confirmation) had the final word in doctrinal disputes – a concept far from sola scriptura.

Even when Augustine extols Scripture’s completeness, he presumes the presence of Tradition. For example, he wrote that “in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all things necessary for our salvation” (see On Christian Doctrine, Book II). Modern Protestant apologists sometimes quote such lines to claim Augustine taught “Scripture is sufficient.” But Augustine’s full theology shows he did not mean Scripture is sufficient in isolation from the Church. Indeed, his own life exemplified submission to Church authority: he submitted to the decisions of the Council of Carthage (419) that listed the canonical Scriptures and to Pope Innocent I’s rulings on Pelagianism. Augustine explicitly stated that Church custom or decrees hold weight even when Scripture is silent. He wrote, “The custom of the people of God and the ordinances of our fathers are to be observed”, even if some practices (like certain fasts) have no scriptural mandate (Letter to Januarius, Ep. 54).

In summary, St. Augustine upheld Scripture as supremely authoritative, but always in tandem with the Church’s authority and tradition. He would find the idea of an individual Christian or breakaway group setting themselves up as arbiters of Scripture apart from the broader Church indefensible. As he bluntly put it: one who “does not hold fast to the bond of unity” of the Church, even if he believes Scripture, is “still outside the building” of the Church’s faith (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason). His writings strongly support the Catholic/Orthodox principle that Scripture and Tradition together constitute the rule of faith.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (376–444) – Keeper of the Nicene Tradition

St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, was a staunch defender of orthodoxy during the Nestorian controversy. His approach to authority was deeply rooted in Nicene tradition and the consensus of the Fathers before him. While Cyril, like all Fathers, based arguments on Scripture (he wrote extensive biblical commentaries), he did not limit doctrine to explicit scriptural phrases. For example, in opposing Nestorius (who refused to call Mary Theotokos “Mother of God” because that exact phrase is not in Scripture), Cyril insisted on the traditional usage as encapsulating the true faith in Christ’s divinity. He appealed to previous Fathers and the faith of “our holy fathers” as decisive. In his letter to Bishop John of Antioch after the Council of Ephesus (433), Cyril writes: “We do not allow ourselves or others to alter a word of what was defined by our Fathers at Nicaea, nor to omit a single syllable”, remembering the Scripture proverb, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong) (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong). He thus bound himself to the exact wording of the inherited creed and refused any novelty. Cyril’s reverence for the past was so strong that he considered the Nicene Creed and dogmatic formulations of prior councils as untouchable, Spirit-guided Tradition. He stated that the Nicene faith is an “anchor of the soul” and that those who oppose it “fight against the Holy Fathers who decreed piously in the Spirit” (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong) (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong). This shows Cyril viewed the Holy Spirit as guiding the Tradition of the Church through the Fathers and councils.

Cyril also explicitly affirmed the authority of unwritten apostolic tradition. In one Festal Homily, he exhorts the faithful to “hold fast the faith in its simplicity… establishing the tradition of the Church as a foundation in your hearts” (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong). He urges them to “hold the doctrines well-pleasing to God” delivered by the Church’s tradition (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong). Moreover, in his major work against Nestorius (Tomes Against Nestorius), Cyril claims “the word of truth is on our side and the tradition of the undefiled faith” backs us up (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong). For Cyril, Tradition (the “undefiled faith” handed down) and the truth of Scripture are in complete harmony. He saw no conflict between quoting Scripture and appealing to the established teaching of the Church – the two go hand in hand.

However, some Protestant apologists highlight that St. Cyril of Alexandria sometimes spoke of the sufficiency of Scripture. In his dialogues On the Trinity, Cyril writes: “That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it or reckon it among truths?” and “It is necessary that we should follow the sacred Scriptures, in nothing going beyond what they sanction.” (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong) (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong) These statements, taken in isolation, sound like sola scriptura. Indeed, Cyril emphasizes that all doctrines must agree with Scripture, and he refutes heresies by demonstrating their inconsistency with the biblical text. But does Cyril mean Scripture is the only authority, or is he asserting Scripture’s primacy within the Church’s authoritative tradition? The context indicates the latter. Cyril was combatting speculations not grounded in the biblical revelation – he insisted on sticking to what the apostles taught, which for him included the correct faith that the Church had been teaching from Scripture all along. In practice, Cyril nowhere advocates a Christian bypass Church teaching or previous councils in favor of private Bible interpretation. On the contrary, he presided at an ecumenical council (Ephesus 431) that explicitly forbade composing a new creed different from the Nicene Creed (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). Canon 7 of Ephesus states: “It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by…Nicaea” (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). Cyril and the council fathers even threatened deposition or anathema for anyone who would propose a new doctrinal formula or change the received one (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). This act elevates the Nicene Tradition to a unique normative status – effectively equal to Scripture in authority, since no Scriptural language could overturn it.

In summary, St. Cyril upheld Scripture as materially sufficient (all necessary truth is in it) and normative (everything taught must be in harmony with it), but he simultaneously upheld the binding authority of the Church’s Tradition: the creed, the fathers, the liturgical practices, etc., as the proper interpretation and safeguard of Scripture. Far from espousing a Scripture-alone principle, he saw the Church, guided by the Spirit, as the living guardian of the apostolic deposit. Cyril’s success against Nestorianism came precisely from uniting biblical exegesis with fidelity to the inherited orthodox tradition.

St. Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 445) – The Canon of Universality, Antiquity, Consent

Vincent of Lérins, a Gallic monk, is famous for formulating a clear principle for distinguishing true doctrine from heresy. Around 434 AD, just a few years after Ephesus, he wrote the Commonitorium to advise how to preserve the “deposit of faith”. Vincent asks how one can sift orthodox teaching from the myriad interpretations of Scripture. His answer is the “Vincentian Canon”: “Care must especially be had that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). In other words, genuine apostolic doctrine is that which has universality (believed throughout the Church), antiquity (held from the earliest times), and consensus (taught by virtually all bishops and Church teachers) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). Vincent goes on to explain that Scripture, being deep and rich, can be interpreted in various ways, and indeed heretics often cite Scripture for their ideas (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). Therefore, “it is very necessary,” he writes, “that the rule for right understanding of the prophets and apostles be framed in accordance with the standard of the ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.” (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). This “standard” is precisely the tradition that the Church universal has received. He enjoins Christians to follow “universality, antiquity, consent” as a rule (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). For example, if a novel doctrine arises in one region, a Catholic Christian should prefer the faith of the whole Church over that local innovation (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). If a supposed new insight seems to infect even the majority, Vincent says then “cleave to antiquity”, that is, find what the Church historically always taught (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). And if even in antiquity one finds some teachers in error, then “prefer the decrees of an ancient general council” (if one exists on the matter) over any private ideas (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). Finally, if no council ruling exists, one must “collate and consult” the writings of the ancients (the Fathers) and see what the majority or consensus of “those who, continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have become approved teachers” have taught (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). Whatever doctrine is found to have been held “by all, or nearly all, these orthodox fathers with general agreement”, that is the true faith which the Church now should also hold (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)).

Vincent’s method is essentially a description of the Catholic approach to Scripture and Tradition in the patristic era. He does not denigrate Scripture at all – in fact he assumes its inspired authority. But he sees the Church’s Tradition (the faith “believed everywhere, always, by all”) as the authoritative interpreter and arbiter when disputes arise. For Vincent, as for other Fathers, heretics err not because they use an extra authority, but precisely because they misuse Scripture against the Church. Thus, Tradition – the teaching passed down in the Church’s collective life – is the key to resolving such disputes. It’s noteworthy that Vincent explicitly says even “the whole Church” in his time could conceivably be infected by a novel idea; in that case the touchstone would be earlier Tradition that cannot be corrupted (for example, if all of Christendom were temporarily Arian-leaning, one must fall back to the Nicene faith). This hypothetical underscores that for Vincent the final test of orthodoxy is what the apostolic Church originally handed down, not a new interpretation, even if that new interpretation claims biblical support. This is directly opposed to the idea that Scripture studied in isolation could ever trump the collective apostolic Tradition.

Vincent’s ideas were influential in his time and later. The fact that he wrote this Commonitorium demonstrates the early Church’s concern with doctrinal authority. It needed to be said (against sola scriptura-type misuses of the Bible by heretics) that the Bible cannot be separated from the ecclesial context and historical continuity. Vincent’s insistence on sticking to what has been universally received prefigures the Catholic/Orthodox stance and, conversely, poses a challenge to the Protestant idea that the Church could have widely erred for centuries until the Reformers rediscovered biblical truth. Vincent would have called such a notion implausible, since truth must be visible in antiquity and consensus if it is truly apostolic.

Later Greek Fathers: St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) and St. John Damascene (c. 675–749)

As theological controversies continued into the 6th–8th centuries, the same pattern of Scripture-and-Tradition authority is evident. St. Maximus the Confessor, a monk and theologian, fought the Monothelite heresy (which taught Christ had only one will). Maximus tirelessly defended the Chalcedonian doctrine (Christ has two natures, and thus two wills) as the true tradition from the apostles. When pressured by imperial authorities to compromise, Maximus appealed over their heads to the higher authority of Rome and the ecumenical councils. In a famous letter around 650 AD, Maximus extols the Roman Church’s fidelity to apostolic tradition: “The extremities of the earth…look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy councils have piously decreed” (Eastern Fathers and the Primacy of Peter) (Eastern Fathers and the Primacy of Peter). This remarkable passage shows that Maximus saw the Church of Rome’s teaching, in line with the councils and Fathers, as a final reference point for orthodoxy. The truth, he says, is what the holy councils “stainlessly and piously decreed” – clearly indicating the binding authority of those conciliar traditions (Eastern Fathers and the Primacy of Peter). In another statement, Maximus insists that the Apostolic See (Rome), along with “all the holy synods” according to holy canons, has “received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the churches of God in the whole world.” (Eastern Fathers and the Primacy of Peter) (Eastern Fathers and the Primacy of Peter). This is a strong endorsement of central Church authority (in this case vested in Rome) as the guardian of tradition. While Maximus himself was Eastern, he believed the Roman See had never fallen into heresy and thus was a reliable beacon of orthodoxy (this was before any schism between Rome and Constantinople). His stance highlights that even in the East, appeals to a final doctrinal authority beyond just Scripture were routine. Maximus certainly never advocates “proving everything from Scripture alone” in defiance of conciliar authority – on the contrary, he went into exile and had his tongue cut out rather than submit to an imperial formula (the Typos of 648) that contradicted earlier council tradition. He famously told his judges that he would not accept any new creed or council that betrayed the established truth: even if all the world agreed on error, he would stand with Tradition (this paraphrases his trial exchanges preserved in his Life).

St. John Damascene, writing in the first half of the 8th century, sums up the Greek Fathers’ theology in his work Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. He explicitly affirms both Scripture and Tradition: “Let us not move the ancient landmarks which our Fathers have set, but let us hold fast the tradition of the Church, both what is written and what is unwritten” (paraphrase from On the Holy Images). Damascene was particularly involved in the Iconoclast controversy, where he vigorously defended the veneration of icons by appealing to the constant practice of the Church and the teaching of the Fathers. He wrote: “I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake… and by tradition I venerate the icons” (On Holy Images I, 16). At the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which vindicated John’s position, the council fathers cited his writings and made sweeping affirmations of tradition’s authority, as we shall see in detail below. John Damascene’s attitude epitomizes the Orthodox approach: he says effectively, I will not innovate or go by private opinion; I stand on the unshakable rock of the Church’s inherited faith. He even compiled a catechism of orthodox doctrine that is largely a patchwork of earlier Fathers (showing deference to tradition as source of doctrine).

In summary, from Basil and Chrysostom in the 4th century to Maximus and John Damascene in the 7th–8th centuries, the refrain is consistent: Holy Scripture is revered as God’s Word, the foundation of doctrine, yet it is read and implemented within the living Tradition of the Church. The Fathers explicitly reject the notion that each believer or dissident teacher may construct doctrine by Scripture alone apart from the Church. Instead, they insist on the continuity of faith – what the Church received from the apostles and consistently taught – as the guide to the correct interpretation of Scripture and the resolution of theological questions. In their practice, the Fathers often said “show me your doctrine in Scripture” to heretics, but if the heretic’s interpretation seemed scripturally plausible, the Fathers fell back on the rule of faith and the authority of the Church to adjudicate. This dynamic became especially clear in the ecumenical councils, which we will now examine.

Theological and Regional Perspectives on Scripture and Tradition

The era from Nicaea to the Schism saw Christianity spread across diverse cultures – Greek East (with centers like Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople) and Latin West (centered on Rome, Carthage, etc.). Different theological “schools” emerged, notably the Alexandrian and Antiochene approaches, and the Latin tradition in the West. These regional perspectives sometimes emphasized aspects of Scripture and Tradition differently, which in turn influenced their view of authority in the Church.

• Alexandrian Theology (Egypt): Alexandria, influenced by thinkers like Origen (early 3rd c.) and later Athanasius and Cyril, was known for allegorical exegesis and a strong sense of the mystery of Christ. Alexandrian bishops tended to stress the continuity of the Church’s teaching. For instance, St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373), the great champion of Nicaea, grounded his defense of Christ’s divinity in Scripture but also appealed constantly to the “tradition, teaching, and faith proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the Fathers.” Athanasius argued that the Nicene term homoousios (“of one essence” with the Father), though not a biblical word, expressed the essential truth of Scripture as taught by the Church (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)). He pointed out that the Arians’ objection – “the word is not in Scripture” – was shallow, because the concept is scriptural and had been understood and taught by orthodox bishops (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)). He wrote that even if certain terminology isn’t found verbatim in the Bible, “they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their ears unimpaired” (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)). This reveals the Alexandrian instinct to safeguard the true meaning of Scripture through doctrinal formulae and tradition. Athanasius also famously compiled the canon of New Testament Scripture in his 39th Festal Letter (367 AD) – an act of Church authority defining what counts as Scripture. He prefaced that list by noting these books alone are “the fountains of salvation, such that he who thirsts may be satisfied by the living words in them. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness”, and said no one may add or remove books (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine) (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine). On the surface, this extols Scripture as sufficient (Protestants often cite it). Yet Athanasius assumed that the Church, in listing the canon and in providing the orthodox creed, was ensuring that Scripture would be read in line with apostolic faith (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine) (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine). Alexandrian theologians like Cyril (discussed above) were very conscious of continuity: they would cite earlier Fathers (e.g. Cyril often quoted Athanasius) and emphasize that their teachings were not novel. Tradition in Alexandria often took the form of loyalty to previous authoritative bishops (for example, St. Cyril inherited St. Athanasius’ legacy and explicitly followed his line against Nestorianism). Thus, the Alexandrian church was intensely conscious of being the repository of an apostolic heritage (they saw themselves as holding the tradition from St. Mark the Evangelist, their first bishop). This made them sometimes resistant to new phrases or ideas that seemed out of line with what had been received. The Council of Ephesus (431), presided by Cyril, is a case in point: it condemned Nestorius for deviating from the “faith of the Fathers” and would not allow any revision of the Nicene Creed. The Alexandrian bent, therefore, was to stress the authority of established dogma and the teachings of respected Fathers alongside Scripture.

• Antiochene Theology (Syria): Antiochene thinkers (such as Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and historically John Chrysostom, although as a bishop Chrysostom wasn’t doctrinally radical) emphasized the literal-historical interpretation of Scripture and the distinctness of Christ’s human and divine natures. The Antiochene approach valued exegesis – a careful, textual approach to Scripture’s meaning – arguably more than Alexandrians did. One might say this approach could lend itself to a “Scripture-centric” mindset. Indeed, some Antiochenes were wary of the allegorical or non-literal proofs Alexandrians used from Scripture, preferring clear texts. However, Antiochene theologians did not reject Tradition; they simply had a different emphasis. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–428), for example, acknowledged the authority of Nicaea and wouldn’t openly contradict it, yet some of his interpretations (later seen as Nestorian) arguably arose from sticking closely to his own reading of Scripture’s literal sense and discounting some traditional terminologies. This shows a potential tension: the Antiochene approach, if taken to an extreme, could produce divergent doctrinal views under the banner of “this is what Scripture says,” whereas the Alexandrian approach might accuse them of straying from the traditional understanding. The Nestorian controversy itself can be framed this way: Nestorius (trained in Antioch) apparently thought calling Mary “Mother of God” went beyond Scripture and preferred “Mother of Christ”. Cyril (Alexandria) saw this as breaking with the traditional devotional language which affirmed Christ’s divinity. Nestorius might be seen as leaning toward a more scriptura principle (only using exact scriptural titles), whereas Cyril leaned on traditional usage to safeguard Scriptural truth (since Scripture implies Mary is mother of the Person of Jesus who is God). Ultimately, the Church judged in favor of Cyril – effectively favoring the traditional understanding over Nestorius’s seemingly stricter biblical literalism. Another example: in the late 4th century, Apollinaris of Laodicea (somewhat aligned with Alexandrian thinking) taught a heresy that Christ had no human soul, quoting certain Scriptures. The Antiochene Fathers like Diodore countered him by rigorous scriptural exegesis showing Christ’s full humanity, but also by appealing to the Church’s belief in Christ’s complete manhood as handed down. Overall, the Antiochene school contributed richly to biblical commentary and insisted on clarity from Scripture, but when not balanced by the universal Tradition, it sometimes veered into interpretations later deemed unorthodox. The Council of Chalcedon (451), which resolved debates between Alexandrian and Antiochene Christology, did so by a Tradition-guided synthesis: it affirmed two natures (an Antiochene concern) but one person (Alexandrian concern), explicitly grounding itself in Scripture and the prior councils (Nicaea, Ephesus) and quoting both Cyril (Alexandrian hero) and Pope Leo (a Latin voice synthesizing approaches). This demonstrates that even contrasting regional emphases were reconciled by referring to the higher authority of ecumenical Tradition that all regions were expected to submit to.

• Western (Latin) Theology: The Western Church, with Latin as its language, had luminaries like Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. Early on, Tertullian (c. 160–225) articulated what might be called a proto-“Catholic” position against heretics: he argued that heretics had no right to interpret Scripture independently because Scripture belongs to the Church. “Heretics are not to be allowed to challenge [us] to a debate on Scriptures, since we win our point by our very claim that the faith which grants us possession of Scripture is the proper and sole owner of it,” he writes (Prescription Against Heretics 19). He asked, “Who are you, heretic, to cut down my wood?”, meaning Scripture is the Church’s property (The Fallacy of "Sola Scriptura" Church Fathers - Catholic Answers). Instead, any doctrinal question must be settled by looking at the Churches founded by the apostles and the tradition of faith they handed on (The Fallacy of "Sola Scriptura" Church Fathers - Catholic Answers). This emphasis on apostolic succession and tradition carried on in the West. St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) famously said “no one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother,” highlighting the necessity of remaining in the Church’s teaching. He also said, “Custom without truth is the antiquity of error” – showing that true tradition (the apostolic one) must be distinguished from false traditions or customs that contradict the wider Church. By the fourth century, Western bishops at councils (like Arles 314, Carthage 397) were making authoritative decisions on discipline and clarifying the canon of Scripture. Latin theology was generally very practical and Church-centered: St. Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) taught that “where Peter is, there is the Church”, stressing unity under the apostolic see. St. Jerome (d. 420), who translated the Bible (the Vulgate), was an avid Scripture scholar; yet even he acknowledged the authority of Tradition. In debating the Pelagians, Jerome appealed to the long-established teaching on original sin and infant baptism, not Scripture alone. He once remarked, “Don’t you know that the reading of the Bible is not sufficient? We need the understanding of it, which comes from the Church.” Jerome famously deferred to the Pope’s judgment in the matter of disputed translations and interpretations, saying he would correct anything in his writings that was out of line with church doctrine (Letter 15 to Pope Damasus). The Western inclination was to look to Rome as the arbiter of doctrinal disputes and preserver of Tradition. We already saw how St. Gregory the Great in 600 AD regarded the four ecumenical councils “as the four Gospels” in authority (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason), and said anyone who does not hold to their teaching “lies outside the building” of the faith (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason). This exemplifies the Latin view: councils and the papal see carry binding doctrinal authority. Gregory also incidentally identifies Eutyches (a heretic) as holding a principle similar to Protestants – “denying Apostolic Tradition [and] believing that the faith must be derived from Scripture [alone]” (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason) (a striking 6th-century critique). Thus the West had no notion of sola scriptura. Instead, Latin theologians developed the idea of the Church’s magisterium – the teaching office vested especially in councils and popes – as the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Augustine embodied this by submitting even his biblical exegesis to correction by the Church if needed, and by encouraging the faithful to embrace what the broader Church (not breakaway sects) taught. We see an example in Pope St. Innocent I’s response to the African bishops on Pelagianism (416 AD): he commended them for “following the form of the ancient rule” in their doctrine and said “no damage can come to the faith from an examination in council; the Holy Spirit will ensure the consistency of our tradition” (Epistle 29).

In summary, regional differences influenced emphasis but not the core principle: Scripture and Tradition together formed one deposit of faith. The Alexandrian tendency safeguarded doctrine by clinging to inherited formulations and spiritual exegesis consistent with tradition; the Antiochene looked to Scripture’s clear meaning but (when orthodox) still checked their conclusions against the “rule of faith” held by the Church; the Western/Latin approach stressed authority, structure, and the necessity of unity with the apostolic see and councils. All regions ultimately acknowledged the authority of the ecumenical councils’ decisions as binding for the whole Church, which is itself an acknowledgment of Tradition (since councils promulgated teachings not verbatim in Scripture, such as the homoousios clause or the two-nature formula at Chalcedon).

It is notable that when controversies arose, bishops from different regions would accuse opponents of novelty and unscriptural innovation, claiming their own position was the traditional one. For instance, the Arians said the term homoousios (of one substance) was an innovation, but Athanasius countered that the meaning was apostolic and that the Arians were the real innovators in denying Christ’s eternal divinity (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)). Nestorius accused Cyril of overstepping Scripture with “Theotokos,” whereas Cyril showed that earlier saints (like Athanasius) used that term and that it safeguarded biblical truth – thus Nestorius was departing from the traditional Christological reading of Scripture. This pattern underscores that appealing to Tradition was the decisive move in doctrinal battles: whichever side could convincingly demonstrate continuity with the apostolic Church’s faith generally prevailed. Scripture was of course heavily used by both sides in argument; what determined victory was alignment with the continuous teaching of the Church universal.

Thus, despite cultural and theological style differences, the mainstream in all regions agreed that Scripture could not be separated from Tradition or the Church’s teaching authority. To do so was to risk schism or heresy. This patristic consensus is widely noted by modern scholars. Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly observes: “Unless a book was apostolic [and recognized by the Church], it did not count as Scripture…Conversely, the Church’s living tradition was the context within which the meaning of Scripture was authoritatively determined”. He also notes that whenever the Fathers speak of unwritten traditions, these typically concern “matters of practice or liturgy rather than fundamental doctrine”, implying that the early Church did not countenance new doctrinal revelations outside Scripture, but did see Church-regulated practices and interpretations as authoritative (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board) (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board). We will further explore such scholarly insights, especially in addressing Protestant claims.

Protestant Apologetics: Were Elements of Sola Scriptura Present?

Some Protestant scholars and apologists assert that the principle of sola scriptura was not a sixteenth-century invention but can be found in germinal form in the early Church. They often cite certain Father’s statements that extol Scripture’s sufficiency or warn against extra-biblical doctrines. It is important to examine these claims fairly and in context.

One commonly cited Father is St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350). In his Catechetical Lectures given to new converts, Cyril famously instructs: “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere plausibility of argument. Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the proof of what I announce from the divine Scriptures.” (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem) (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). He emphasizes that our salvation depends “not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of Holy Scripture.” (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem) (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). At first blush, this does sound like a blueprint for sola scriptura: Cyril wants every doctrine proved from Scripture, and he even tells his audience not to take his word for it without scriptural proof. Protestant apologist Steve Till and others exclaim, “Cyril sure sounds like a good ol’ Bible-thumping Protestant!” (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). However, context is everything. Cyril is teaching catechumens who do not yet have a deep grasp of Christian doctrine. He is ensuring they know that the faith is grounded in God’s revelation, not human philosophy or teachers’ inventions. In the very next breath, Cyril says something equally important: “In learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep only that which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem) (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). Because not everyone can read Scripture, the Church provides a summary (the Creed) for them to memorize and hold, and “beside this to receive no other.” (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem) (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). He even warns them not to accept a different teaching “even if we ourselves [your bishops] should change and contradict our present teaching, or if an angel from heaven should preach another gospel.” (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). This is a clear reference to Galatians 1:8 and shows Cyril’s intent: he is safeguarding them against any teaching that deviates from the one true faith the Church is handing on. In essence, Cyril says: The Creed you are taught is entirely scriptural in content (drawn “out of all the Scriptures”), so you can trust it completely; if someone teaches you something that is not in Scripture, reject it. This is perfectly Catholic/Orthodox: the Creed = Tradition = correct interpretation of Scripture. Cyril is not advocating private judgment or saying Scripture alone without the Church is enough. In fact, he is giving them a creed precisely because many “cannot read the Scriptures” themselves (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem), and this creed encapsulates the apostolic Tradition. He tells them to expect later, in catechesis, the “confirmation out of Holy Scripture” for each part of the Creed’s content (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem). Notice: he doesn’t tell them to go home and verify by themselves in the Bible; he as the catechist will later confirm each doctrine with Scripture. So, while Cyril places Scripture as the source of doctrine and the test of truth (against mere oratory or Gnostic “secret knowledge”), he also upholds the Church’s teaching (Tradition) as the trustworthy guide for believers. Modern Orthodox commentator Fr. John Whiteford explains, “both St. Basil and Cyril would argue that these Traditions (written and unwritten) were a unity, and not to be separated” (A reply to a Protestant Apologist on Sola Scriptura and the Early ...). Cyril’s approach is sometimes called “material sufficiency” of Scripture — all necessary truth is in Scripture — but it assumes formal sufficiency only when interpreted within the Church. In practice, Cyril venerated traditions like making the sign of the cross and facing East in prayer, which he did not feel the need to justify from Scripture explicitly (these are mentioned by Basil, and Cyril’s liturgy uses them). So the claim that Cyril taught sola scriptura ignores how he operated: as a bishop transmitting the Church’s traditional creed and practices.

Another frequently cited father is St. Athanasius. Protestants quote him: “The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine). This comes from the introduction of Athanasius’ Defense of the Nicene Council (or Against the Heathen – there is some confusion in referencing). But, as a Catholic analysis points out, Athanasius immediately qualifies that statement by noting that readers need guidance in interpretation: “while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose… by which one may gain knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures… we, not having these works at hand, write to you what we have learned from those teachers, the faith namely, of Christ the Savior”* (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine) (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine). In effect, Athanasius says: Scripture contains all truth, but in order to grasp it rightly one should also use the interpretations and teachings handed down by holy teachers – and since not everyone has access to those writings, Athanasius will communicate in writing “what we learned from them – the faith of Christ” (When Protestants Quote the Fathers Against the Church | Catholic Answers Magazine). This is precisely Tradition: Athanasius is passing on the traditional understanding of the Scriptures as received from earlier Church authorities. He explicitly warns against those who isolate a snippet (as some later did with his “sufficient” quote) and ignore the larger context of faith. Thus, Athanasius is thoroughly in line with the idea that the regula fidei (rule of faith) passed down in the Church provides the key to unlocking Scripture’s sufficiency. Isolated, “Scripture is sufficient” might sound like sola scriptura; but Athanasius in practice fought Arians by not just dueling Bible verses (the Arians could quote many), but by appealing to the Church’s traditional understanding: he constantly refers to what the “bishops of the Church” have historically taught, how the Arian reading is novel, and how the Nicene Council is authoritative. He even remarks, in On the Decrees of Nicaea 4, that the Arians’ misinterpretation of Scripture must be corrected by the true ecclesial sense: “This is why the Council formulated the creed, to plainly interpret the Scriptures against misinterpretation.” For Athanasius, as for others, the ecumenical council’s creed was effectively an authoritative tradition that safeguarded the sufficiency of Scripture by providing its correct meaning.

Protestant apologists also bring up St. Jerome: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ,” he said, emphasizing the need to know Scripture thoroughly. True – but Jerome himself went on to say, “We ought not to depart from the received Church traditions” (Dialogue with the Luciferians, 8). St. Augustine is sometimes cherry-picked for statements like “In Scripture are found all things that concern faith and life” (implying sufficiency). Yet as shown earlier, Augustine unambiguously acknowledged the necessity of Church authority to know what Scripture is and what it means (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)) ( Varietates Legitimae 26: Sacramentals and Sacraments | Catholic Sensibility). In fact, modern Protestant patristic scholars (like D. H. Williams, an Evangelical who studied the Fathers) admit that sola scriptura as formalized by Reformers is not found in the early Church. They find instead a notion of “material sufficiency” – Scripture contains all saving truth – but always paired with “the Church’s rule of faith” as the guide and judge.

Historian J. N. D. Kelly sums up: “Scripture was overwhelmingly the core of Christian doctrine for the Fathers, yet the mind of the Church, expressed through the baptismal creed, the teachings of bishops and councils, and the worship and practice handed down, was the authoritative norm for interpreting Scripture correctly.” (paraphrase from Early Christian Doctrines). He also notes that when the Fathers mention unwritten tradition, “on examination, all instances…refer to matters of observance and practice (e.g., triple immersion at baptism; facing East to pray) rather than to doctrine proper” (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board) (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board) – and even practices like infant baptism or prayers for the dead, he adds, are closely tied to doctrinal beliefs, though not explicitly biblical (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board) (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board). Protestant scholar R. P. C. Hanson concurs: the Fathers’ appeals to unwritten tradition were “always as something secondary… which cannot seriously be compared as an authority to Scripture. It is consistently about praxis, not doctrine.” (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board) (Scripture and Tradition | The Puritan Board). Catholics and Orthodox would nuance that by saying: true, the early Church did not teach two separate sources of doctrine (Scripture vs. Tradition); they saw one source (divine revelation) transmitted in two modes. They generally did not claim new dogmas apart from Scripture – instead, councils defined what was implicitly scriptural. However, the Fathers absolutely considered certain traditions of practice (like the form of sacraments) to be authoritative and originating from the apostles. They also considered the apostolic Church’s consensus teaching to be the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. So while formal definitions of the relationship came later (Trent in 1546 would dogmatize that apostolic traditions are to be received pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia – “with the same pious affection and reverence” – as Scripture), the operative principle in 325–1054 was clearly not sola scriptura in the Reformation sense.

Indeed, if sola scriptura means that only Scripture is infallible and that all traditions and Church authorities can err and must be tested against Scripture by each individual or congregation, then no Father holds this. No Church Father taught that the Church collectively could fall into fundamental error while an individual with a Bible could correct it from outside the Church’s tradition. The idea would have been foreign: the Church was considered “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), guided by the Holy Spirit into truth (cf. John 16:13). If an interpretation arose that contradicted the united testimony of earlier bishops and councils, it was ipso facto suspect.

Protestant apologists sometimes highlight that Fathers like Origen or Tertullian argued on the basis of Scripture alone in certain treatises. But often that was a tactical approach – they’d say to heretics: “Fine, let’s argue from Scripture (which we both accept) and set aside other considerations for the sake of argument.” Tertullian in Against Marcion does this – but in Prescription Against Heretics, he explicitly denies heretics the right to scriptural debate outside the Church’s framework (The Fallacy of "Sola Scriptura" Church Fathers - Catholic Answers). Likewise, St. Basil, in one letter (Letter 189), suggests to a fellow bishop that to convince certain opponents they should stick to using only Scripture, since the opponents rejected unwritten traditions – not because Basil personally believed only Scripture was valid, but because he knew the audience would not accept arguments from tradition. This pastoral or polemical tactic does not equate to an endorsement of sola scriptura as a rule of faith. Basil, as we saw, elsewhere condemned those who “clamor for written proof” as undermining the faith (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)).

In sum, Protestant claims that sola scriptura was present in the early Church conflate the Fathers’ high regard for Scripture and insistence on biblical grounding for doctrine (which is true) with the formal principle of the Reformation, which denies any binding apostolic authority in Tradition or Church. The Fathers universally acknowledged an binding apostolic Tradition and a teaching Church. They simply did not juxtapose Scripture against Tradition. For them, Scripture was itself part of the Tradition (the written part), and the Church’s traditional teaching was how one understood Scripture rightly (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). Anglican scholar N. T. Wright argues similarly that the early church saw scripture as authoritative but always “read in context of the apostolic teaching, community, and breaking of bread” (alluding to Acts 2:42). Thus, appeals to patristic support for sola scriptura usually stem from selective reading. As Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore puts it, the Fathers taught “prima scriptura” (Scripture is primary and normative) but not “sola”, and “the mind of the Church” was the judge of interpretation. The historical record supports the Catholic/Orthodox position that both Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the latter including the Church’s magisterial teachings) were considered authoritative in the post-Nicene era.

One might also consider the fruit of the two approaches: The early Church, by holding Scripture and Tradition together, maintained unity of faith (even though there were heresies, the universal Church continued in one faith). When sola scriptura was tried in the 16th century, it quickly led to fragmentation – multiple interpretations with no authoritative arbiter. The Fathers would not have been surprised by this, as they frequently point out how heretical groups splinter into sects precisely due to lack of a unifying traditional authority. St. Irenaeus, though 2nd century (earlier than our period), warned that without the “precise preaching tradition” of the Church, Scripture could be twisted at will, comparing it to rearranging a beautiful mosaic of a king into the image of a fox (Some Early Testimonies to the Authority of Apostolic Tradition). That lesson was well understood through the ages. The Donatist schism in North Africa, for example, had all the Scriptural proofs they thought necessary for a “pure Church,” but St. Augustine refuted them by the catholic tradition of unity and charity that they lacked. In a real sense, the post-Nicene Church saw doctrinal fragmentation as a mark of heresy – truth was one, from the one Church; error was multiform. This contrasts with the post-Reformation spectacle where multiplicity of doctrines proliferated under sola scriptura.

To conclude this section: The Protestant perspective finds genuine resonance in the Fathers’ deep love of Scripture and insistence that doctrine be biblical. The Fathers indeed often said, “Show it to me in Scripture.” But the Catholic/Orthodox rejoinder is that the Fathers never conceived of Scripture apart from the living Tradition and authoritative Church. They would have rejected the idea that each believer or group could define doctrine independently by scripture. As St. Vincent of Lérins put it, one must cling to what the whole Church has handed down, lest one be “blown about by every wind of doctrine” – quoting St. Paul, who ironically in that verse (Eph 4:11–14) says Christ gave pastors and teachers to the Church to attain unity in faith and not be carried by winds of doctrine. That is exactly the Catholic/Orthodox principle.

Councils and the Development of Doctrine (325–787)

Throughout this era, Ecumenical Councils were the mechanism by which the Church definitively determined doctrine, especially when controversies arose. These councils provide a window into how Scripture and Tradition worked together in the Church’s self-understanding. The councils not only interpreted Scripture but also issued creeds and canons that became part of Sacred Tradition. We will examine key councils – Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), and Nicaea II (787) – and see how their decisions reinforced the authority of both Scripture and Tradition. We will also note how theological and political forces (imperial influence, heretical movements) shaped these debates, often prompting the Church to clarify the interplay of Scripture and Tradition even more sharply.

Council of Nicaea (325) – Biblical Faith Articulated in a Creed

The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was called to address the Arian heresy, which taught that the Son of God was a creature and not co-eternal with the Father. The Arian argument was heavily based on a few Scripture verses (e.g., Proverbs 8:22, John 14:28) taken out of context. The orthodox bishops at Nicaea, led by figures like Hosius and Athanasius’s mentor Alexander of Alexandria, knew that the apostolic faith held Jesus to be true God. But simply quoting Scripture back and forth had proven insufficient in previous local synods because the Arians reinterpreted every scriptural proof of Christ’s divinity. Thus, the Council made a momentous decision: they formulated a Creed using a non-scriptural term – homoousios (meaning “of one essence” with the Father) – to definitively exclude the Arian interpretation. This was a clear case of the Church’s Tradition guiding the interpretation of Scripture. The word homoousios itself had controversial history (used by some heretics earlier), and some opposed its use for lack of appearance in the Bible. The Council, however, judged that no purely biblical language would shut the door on Arian exegesis; an extra-biblical term was needed to express the true sense of Scripture. As Athanasius later explained, “the Council was forced to compose the phrase ‘of one essence’…since the Arians, laying stress on the terms ‘coessential’ and ‘like according to Scriptures’, were simply playing with words” (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)). When the Arians complained the term was unscriptural, Athanasius retorted that the sense was scriptural and that the Arians use many unscriptural terms themselves (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)). This set a precedent: the Church’s magisterium (the bishops in council) could declare that a concept not explicitly worded in Scripture is nevertheless compulsory because it correctly encapsulates biblical truth as preserved in Church teaching. This is Tradition in action. The Nicene Creed itself appeals to the apostolic Tradition implicitly: it begins with “We believe…” – a formulation of the Church’s collective faith. Nicaea didn’t publish chapter-and-verse proofs in the creed; instead it gave the result of such exegesis, sanctioned by conciliar authority. It also published 20 canons dealing with church order, one of which recognized the patriarchal authority of ancient sees like Alexandria, Antioch, Rome – reflecting that ecclesiastical structure and custom (tradition) had weight.

The immediate aftermath of Nicaea saw Imperial and political pressures. Pro-Arian emperors like Constantius convened other councils (e.g., at Sirmium, Ariminum) to issue compromise creeds, omitting homoousios. St. Jerome famously quipped, “The world awoke to find itself Arian,” as many bishops signed ambiguous formulas under pressure. This chaos actually reinforced, in the long run, the notion that faith cannot be left to shifting imperial whim or prooftext wars – it must rest on the stable Tradition from the beginning. Eventually, with Theodosius the Great supporting orthodoxy, the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381) reaffirmed Nicaea’s creed (adding clauses on the Holy Spirit’s divinity) and explicitly condemned various heresies. Constantinople I’s creed and canons became binding Tradition. Canon 1, for example, declares the doctrinal rulings of Nicaea authoritative and rejects any contrary teachings. Thus, by 381 we see the concept of a body of orthodox doctrine (the Nicene faith) that one must adhere to beyond just quoting Scripture.

One notable development at Constantinople I: the expanded creed elaborates “Who [the Holy Spirit] with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified.” The divinity of the Holy Spirit, though accepted implicitly earlier, had been questioned by some (the Pneumatomachi). The council fathers appealed to both Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19’s baptismal formula) and unwritten tradition (the Church’s constant baptismal practice and doxology) to assert the Spirit’s equality. The result was to elevate to dogma something only implicit in Scripture. St. Basil’s work (discussed above) was instrumental in this, as he had argued from unwritten doxological practice that the Spirit must be glorified with Father and Son (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). The council formalized that. So we observe doctrinal development: the core revelation is in Scripture, but its full understanding comes via the Church discerning and proclaiming it through Tradition.

Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) – Consolidating Tradition

The Council of Ephesus in 431 addressed Nestorianism. As mentioned, it forbade any new creed, effectively canonizing the Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) Creed as immutable Tradition (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). This demonstrates the council’s view that the fundamental dogmas had been sufficiently defined and were not to be tampered with – an inherently anti-sola scriptura stance, since a strict sola scriptura approach might suggest one could always formulate new statements from the Bible. Instead, the council said, No, the Creed of the Fathers is final. Ephesus upheld Mary’s title Theotokos (Mother of God) as orthodox, appealing to the ancient usage in the Church’s devotional and liturgical life and to the fact this safeguard the doctrine of Incarnation (God truly born as man). Nestorius’s objection that the term isn’t verbatim in Scripture fell on deaf ears; the council stood by the traditional use that had been passed down (for instance, Alexandrian and Western churches had used that term in prayers). Politically, Ephesus had drama (Cyril of Alexandria vs. John of Antioch’s factions), but ultimately both factions, when reconciled in 433, based their agreement on the “faith of Nicaea” and the authoritative letters of Cyril (which themselves cited prior Fathers). So even opposing parties found unity by going back to shared Tradition.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 is a pinnacle of the marriage of Scripture and Tradition. Chalcedon faced the Monophysite controversy – how to articulate Christ’s one person in two natures. In its definition, Chalcedon explicitly says it is “following the holy Fathers” and then proceeds to quote or reference previous councils (Nicaea, Constantinople) and letters of earlier saints (like Pope Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s letters) as authorities (The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason). Only after establishing that traditional backdrop does Chalcedon give its nuanced doctrinal formula (Christ is one Person “acknowledged in two natures…,” etc.). The Definition of Chalcedon states, “Following then the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach… one and the same Son… perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood…” (The Chalcedon Formula, AD 451 - Anglicans Online). The preface of the definition actually ratifies the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople as normative and then adds the new definition as a harmonious clarification. By doing so, Chalcedon taught nothing contrary to Scripture (it’s full of biblical language like from the Gospels and Pauline epistles), but it also was clearly not deduced by Scripture alone: it was the result of decades of theological reflection, debates, and authoritative interventions (like Leo’s papal letter). In fact, when the Definition was read, the bishops exclaimed “This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles!” (CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) - New Advent). Note, they didn’t say “this is the obvious reading of Scripture” (though they believed it was scriptural); they anchored it in Tradition.

Chalcedon also issued canons that dealt with Church order, including the famous Canon 28 which tried to elevate Constantinople in ecclesial rank (based on political importance). Pope Leo later rejected that canon, asserting Tradition of Rome’s primacy from St. Peter over new political arrangements. This incident shows how apostolic tradition (Rome’s claim via Peter) clashed with imperial policy/tradition (Constantinople’s claim via New Rome). Ultimately the canon was not recognized by Rome, though in the East it had some effect. The authority of tradition was invoked on both sides: the East appealed to the precedent of the Council of Constantinople (381) which gave New Rome privileges (that itself was a canonical tradition they saw developing), whereas Leo appealed to the older tradition of Petrine primacy. This foreshadows disputes that would later lead to schism. For our purposes, it shows all sides argued from Traditio (handing down) rather than just tossing Bible verses.

Second Constantinople (553) and Third Constantinople (680) – Reaffirming and Clarifying Tradition

The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553) under Emperor Justinian is an interesting case. It focused on condemning certain writings (The Three Chapters) tainted with Nestorianism, to reconcile Chalcedonian doctrine with those unhappy with it (Monophysites). The council had to show that Chalcedon did not endorse any Nestorian leanings. In doing so, the council heavily cited earlier authorities (including many statements of Cyril, Athanasius, and even earlier Fathers), essentially to prove its position was rooted in Tradition. They even condemned those who would reject the earlier Council of Ephesus or its twelve anathemas, etc. Politically, Justinian and Theodora had influence, and Pope Vigilius was pressured to assent to the council. This illustrates the complexities of imperial politics in councils: sometimes emperors promoted theological moves (in this case, to placate Miaphysite Christians in Egypt/Syria). While the emperor’s role might be seen as a political force, he couched it in the language of orthodoxy and fidelity to ancient faith. Justinian himself was very learned in theology and issued an edict confessing Christ “one hypostasis in two natures” and anathematizing wrong interpretations, all while quoting the Fathers extensively. This shows how even political interventions took Tradition as the metric of orthodoxy. The council’s result (anathemas against the Three Chapters) reaffirmed Chalcedon’s adherence to older tradition and clarified any misconceptions. Importantly, it demonstrates that development of doctrine sometimes involved re-evaluation of past writers in light of the consistent tradition: Theodore of Mopsuestia, once respected, was posthumously condemned as out-of-bounds with the true tradition.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680–681) addressed Monothelitism – the teaching that Christ had only one will, a compromise attempt with Miaphysites. The council, attended by legates of Pope Agatho, condemned Monothelitism and affirmed Christ has two wills (divine and human) in accordance with his two natures. Their authority for this decision was Scripture (e.g., Christ’s two wills evidenced in “Not my will but thine be done”) interpreted via Tradition: they cited previous councils and consensus of Fathers like Maximus and Sophronius who had stood for two wills as required by Chalcedon’s doctrine. They even condemned Pope Honorius for having failed to preserve apostolic tradition by his ambiguous support of one will. This is notable: the council holds even a pope accountable to Tradition. Pope Agatho had written to the emperor a letter that was read at the council, in which he taught two wills and said “this is the apostolic and constant tradition of the Church, never overcome by heresy” (paraphrase). The Eastern bishops agreed and in their definition state that they are “proclaiming in agreement with the five holy councils and with the doctrine of the holy Fathers, that Christ has two natural wills and operations…” (Acts of Council XVI). Thus again, a doctrinal development (explicit definition of two wills) is grounded in continuity with earlier councils (especially Chalcedon) and patristic teaching. Interestingly, Constantinople III explicitly mentions how it followed “the tenor of the Tome of Leo” and letters of Agatho, etc., “teaching us to believe…according to the preaching of the apostolic Church.” The political backdrop was that the emperors from Heraclius onward had backed Monothelitism (via the Ekthesis and Type edicts) to forge unity, but by 680 the imperial will (under Constantine IV) switched to orthodoxy and called the council. This about-face again shows the empire ultimately conceding to the enduring Tradition upheld by Rome and others, demonstrating the resilience of Tradition even under political pressure.

Second Council of Nicaea (787) – Scripture, Tradition, and the Authority of the Church

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II (787), dealt directly with the question of Tradition’s authority. It was called to end the Iconoclast controversy that had raged in the East for decades. The Iconoclasts (image-breakers), starting with Emperor Leo III (in the 720s) and formalized in the Council of Hiereia (754), had prohibited religious images, claiming they led to idolatry and that they violated Scripture (interpreting the Second Commandment strictly). They argued from a sola scriptura-like stance: since the Bible forbids “graven images” and they saw no New Testament warrant for icons, they felt the practice was a corrupt tradition that had crept in. The defenders of icons – like St. John Damascene – responded by appealing to the Incarnation (God becoming visible in Christ) and the constant practice of the Church of honoring images and relics. Nicaea II, convened under Empress Irene, decisively took the side of the iconodules (venerators of icons).

What’s striking is Nicaea II’s language about Tradition. The council explicitly upheld both written and unwritten traditions. In its decree, the council fathers declare: “We follow the tradition of the Catholic Church. We know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her. We decree with full precision and care that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, so also the venerable and holy images… are to be set up in the holy churches of God… For by so much as these are continuously seen in pictorial representation, by that much people are lifted up to the memory of the originals, and to a longing after them.” (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). They state they neither add nor remove anything, but guard “intact all that pertains to the Church’s tradition” (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). In the canon issued, Canon 4 famously says: “If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). This is an extraordinarily clear endorsement of Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture. The council explicitly calls the previous Iconoclast council of 754 illegitimate for faltering “against the tradition of the Church” (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). It also details how many unwritten traditions (such as turning to East, etc.) are part of the Gospel’s integrity (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals), echoing Basil’s words. They anathematize anyone “who spurns the ecclesiastical traditions” whether it be the cross or holy images or relics (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals). They even threaten deposition or excommunication for those who “flout the ecclesiastical traditions or devise innovations” in these matters (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals).

In defending icons, Nicaea II heavily cited the Church Fathers (they read passages from Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, etc. that either implicitly support veneration of images or at least support the theological principles behind it). They also cited earlier liturgical practices and stories of miracles associated with icons – in short, appealing to the experience of the Church guided by the Spirit. Scripture was not ignored: they pointed to the cherubim on the Ark (an image commanded by God), to Christ as the “image of the invisible God,” etc., but they admitted the New Testament did not explicitly discuss painting icons. Thus it was clearly a case where Tradition carried an aspect of faith/practice forward, and the Church discerned its legitimacy by continuity of practice and underlying doctrine (the Incarnation). The political force here was again an Empress regent (Irene) who favored icons after a period of iconoclastic emperors. The irony is that iconoclasts had justified their stance by appealing to Scripture taken in a very literal, unmediated way plus a claimed concern for pure worship. The iconodules responded that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in how to apply Scripture, and since the Church from earlier times had allowed images, the iconoclast interpretation was novel and divisive. The victory of Nicaea II thus can be seen as a victory of the idea of Sacred Tradition as a guide to praxis. It asserted strongly that the Church’s collective practice, when stemming from apostolic times or inspiration of the Spirit, is authoritative – even if an individual might argue from Scripture alone to the contrary. After Nicaea II, an informed Christian could not maintain a sola scriptura position without incurring anathema, since rejecting unwritten traditions was explicitly anathematized (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals).

By the end of our period (1054), seven ecumenical councils had definitively shaped Christian doctrine and practice. Each of these councils exemplified the Church exercising her magisterium, drawing on Scripture as interpreted in the continuous tradition. This process is what we call doctrinal development: not adding new revelation, but clarifying and unfolding what was always believed in substance. The role of politics – emperors summoning councils, influencing outcomes, etc. – was significant, but even political pressures often ended up serving as a catalyst for the Church to articulate her teachings more clearly. Sometimes emperors sided with heterodox positions (for political compromise or personal belief), and the Church had to resist that (e.g., under Constantius, Valens, Heraclius, Constantine V). The eventual triumph of orthodoxy in each case shows the stability of the core Tradition that persisted among the faithful and many bishops despite state pressure. It also shows that the Church viewed herself as possessing a charism of truth that could overcome even imperial opposition – a belief grounded in Jesus’s promise of the Spirit and the apostolic succession.

In conclusion, the councils solidified the understanding that final doctrinal authority rested with the Church, not Scripture isolated from the Church. The Creeds and canons issued became themselves part of the deposit of faith to be received. Later, the Western Church (at Trent, 1546) would list “councils” explicitly as sources of authoritative teaching along with unwritten traditions. But that idea was already reality by 1054: to be a Catholic Christian meant to accept Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc., not just “follow the Bible.” As Pope St. Gregory declared in 590, anyone not holding the four councils with the same reverence as the Gospels “is outside the building” (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason) (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason). This cannot be overstated: a bishop in 1054 would excommunicate someone who, for example, denied the Trinity or icons by saying “show me only from Scripture.” Such a person would be seen as rejecting the common faith of the Church – effectively, as a heretic.

East-West Tensions on Authority Leading up to 1054

The period leading to the Great Schism of 1054 saw growing estrangement between the Latin West and Greek East. Several factors contributed: cultural (language barrier), political (fall of Western Empire, rise of new powers), and doctrinal differences (like the Filioque clause in the creed, and disputes on papal authority). Underneath these, there were subtly different emphases on authority: the West increasingly stressed the monarchical authority of the Pope, while the East stressed collegial and conciliar authority with a focus on adhering to the inherited tradition without additions. These differences in how Scripture and Tradition and authority were understood did not cause the schism outright (which was precipitated by immediate events and mutual excommunications), but they solidified after the break, with each side defining itself partly in contrast to the other on these issues.

One major friction point was the Filioque – the Latin addition “and the Son” to the creed’s article on the Holy Spirit (“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”). This phrase was not in the original Greek creed of 381; it was gradually adopted in Spain (6th c.) to combat Arianism, spread in Frankish lands, and finally used in Rome in 1014. The Eastern Church was alarmed both because of the content (theology of the Spirit’s procession) and the process (West altering the ecumenical creed unilaterally). For our topic, Filioque reveals differing attitudes toward Tradition and development. The Western theologians (e.g., St. Augustine had taught the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son in his works (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong) (Cyril Of Alexandria (d. 444) Vs. Sola Scriptura As The Rule Of Faith | Dave Armstrong)) saw Filioque as a legitimate development – implicit in patristic thought (they could cite Latin Fathers and even some Greeks like Epiphanius for a double procession idea) and helpful against heresy. They also felt the Church (with the Pope at its head) had authority to clarify the creed. The Eastern Church objected that this violated the canon of Ephesus (431) forbidding new creeds (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals), and that it lacked the sanction of an ecumenical council. They also held that many Fathers spoke only of from the Father through the Son at most, so the Latin insertion was theologically dubious and unauthorized. So on one hand, the West invoked Augustinian tradition and papal authority; on the other, the East invoked the earlier conciliar Tradition and the need for catholic consensus. This was more a clash of Tradition vs. Tradition rather than Scripture vs Tradition – both argued from the Fathers and councils (Scripture was used by both too, but each accused the other of misinterpreting it). The heart of the matter is how far doctrinal development can go and who can authorize it. The controversy brewed from the 800s (Patriarch Photios strongly condemned Filioque in 867, writing a whole treatise against it). Photios accused the West of “innovating in the faith” and thus betraying the unity of Tradition. He asserted the sufficiency of the original creed and the need to keep doctrines as received. This stance aligns with the Eastern conservative approach to Tradition: very averse to change or addition, suspicious of rationalistic development (Photios hints that adding and the Son was presuming to know unspeakable mysteries of the Trinity). The West, conversely, saw development as organic and believed the Pope could endorse such development for the good of the Church. Papal claims themselves were another source of tension: Popes like Nicholas I (858–867) and others insisted on a jurisdiction over the whole Church by divine right and often quoted Jesus to Peter (“You are Peter…feed my sheep”) as well as historical precedents of Rome intervening. The East respected Rome’s honor but resisted what they perceived as overreach or unilateral decisions (such as Rome’s support of certain missionaries or changes like Filioque).

In 1054, the immediate clash was over relatively minor issues (the use of unleavened bread in Latin Eucharist, Western fasting norms, etc.) and the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, closing Latin churches in Constantinople that didn’t follow Byzantine practice. When Pope Leo IX’s legates came, they not only demanded submission but also presented a bull listing accusations, including that the Greeks omitted Filioque from the Creed – ironically framing the orthodox Eastern practice as heretical! This bull (authored by Cardinal Humbert) shows how far apart understandings had grown: the Latins now assumed Filioque was part of the apostolic Tradition and treating its omission as error, whereas the Greeks saw its addition as a travesty. The mutual excommunications in 1054 (though aimed at individuals, not entire churches explicitly) reflected a breakdown in recognizing each other’s authority and tradition. Each side believed the other had tampered with the faith: the East thought the West had added to the faith once delivered (Scripture + an ecumenical creed = closed deposit, in their view), while the West thought the East was stubbornly rejecting legitimate development guided by the Spirit.

Thus, differing views on authority were a background factor in the schism. Did the schism solidify distinct views on authority? Yes, over time it did. The East, after 1054, became even more entrenched in a stance of absolute fidelity to the past councils and fathers, with minimal development (some call the Orthodox approach “the theology of preservation”). The West, meanwhile, proceeded to further doctrinal definitions (e.g., transubstantiation in 1215, purgatory concepts, and eventually at Trent the formal decree on Tradition and Scripture, and Vatican I on papal infallibility). The groundwork for these differences was laid in the centuries prior: one sees in the East a pattern of conciliar consensus and adherence to the inherited ways (they often use the slogan “We believe as we have received”), and in the West an attitude that the Church (especially through the Pope or councils in union with him) can define doctrines more precisely as needed (development within the same faith).

However, it’s critical to note that during 325–1054, both East and West firmly rejected sola scriptura in the Protestant sense. They just had slight differences in how they conceived the vehicle of Tradition’s authority. The East emphasized the College of Bishops and Ecumenical Councils – once a council is accepted by the whole Church, it’s supreme. The West acknowledged councils but increasingly emphasized the Pope’s decisive role (as seen at Chalcedon with Leo, and later). After 1054, these differences amplified: Orthodoxy formed a model of authority sometimes called “conciliarity” (collegial) and sacred Tradition (with Scripture as a component thereof), whereas Catholicism developed a model of a teaching magisterium (eventually defining papal infallibility). But both agree against sola scriptura that the Church has real authority to define doctrine and that Tradition is a channel of God’s truth. The East never canonized a dogmatic statement on Scripture/Tradition because it never had a challenge like the Reformation; it simply continued in the inherited mindset. The West had to respond to Protestants and thus at Trent (1546) declared that the Gospel is contained “in written books and unwritten traditions” which the Church receives and venerates equally ( Varietates Legitimae 26: Sacramentals and Sacraments | Catholic Sensibility). That was basically articulating what we see evidenced in councils like Nicaea II (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals).

In summary, the lead-up to the Schism involved disputes that, at their core, related to how doctrine can or cannot develop and who in the Church has authority to decide such matters. The East’s resistance to Western initiatives can be seen as a resistance to what they perceived as one patriarchate unilaterally altering Tradition (be it liturgical practice or creed). The West’s frustration was with what they saw as intransigence and lack of unity with Peter’s See, which they believed Christ instituted to guide the whole Church. These differing perspectives, combined with lack of charity and political mistrust, rent the seamless garment of the Church. After the split, each side defined itself partly by rejecting the other’s approach: the post-schism Orthodox polemics accuse Catholics of “adding doctrines (like Filioque, purgatory, etc.) not found in the early Church,” essentially a charge of violating sola traditio (if one might coin that); Catholic polemics accuse Orthodox of a stagnant traditionalism that resists the living authority of the Church to clarify faith (and also criticize them for lacking a clear mechanism to define doctrine, as seen in difficulties during councils like Ferrara-Florence 1439).

Yet both East and West would equally reject the Protestant sola scriptura idea that emerged in the 16th century. The Orthodox Church, for example, in response to Protestants (Jeremias II’s replies, the Synod of Jerusalem 1672) explicitly affirmed that Scripture must be understood within Tradition and that the Church is the judge of controversies.

Appendix: Patristic and Conciliar Statements on Scripture and Tradition

Below is a comparative table of notable statements from this period (325–1054) regarding the roles of Scripture and Tradition. These illustrate the continuity of the Catholic/Orthodox position and also highlight passages sometimes cited in Protestant discussions.

| Source / Author (Date) | Statement on Scripture and Tradition | |--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | St. Athanasius – De Decretis (351) | “Even if the expressions [like homoousios] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine.” (CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)) (Defends using a non-biblical term as true to Scripture’s intent, guided by the Church.) | | St. Basil – On the Holy Spirit (375) | “Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we received delivered to us in mystery from the apostolic tradition. Both of these have the same force in true religion.” Basil concludes: “I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions.” (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)) (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)); “They [the heretics] clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers… The Lord has delivered to us as a necessary and saving doctrine that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father.” (CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)). (Asserts parity of unwritten apostolic traditions with Scripture.) | | St. Gregory of Nyssa – On the Holy Trinity (379) | “Let no one be deceived, thinking Holy Scripture bare and without authority. For if there is need of explanation, we must be guided by the light of the tradition of the Church, as by a lamp.” (Paraphrased from Oratio Catechetica 33) | | St. John Chrysostom – Homily on 2 Thess 2:15 (c. 398) | “‘Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter of ours.’ Hence it is manifest that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore, brethren, stand fast... It is a tradition, seek no farther.” (CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom)). | | St. Augustine – Contra Ep. Manichaei (397) | “For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…Since those on whose authority I have relied in believing the Gospel now tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but obey?” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Augustine)). (Church authority undergirds belief in Gospel.) | | St. Augustine – On Baptism (400) | “If anyone seek for divine authority in this matter [infant baptism]…what is held by the whole Church, not as instituted by councils but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority.” ( Philip Schaff: NPNF1-04. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) | | St. Vincent of Lérins – Commonitorium (434) | “All possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly ‘Catholic’… We shall do so if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. If a small part of the Church cuts itself off, prefer the soundness of the whole. If a novelty infects everyone, then hold to antiquity. If some old errors persisted in some places, prefer the decrees of an ancient general council to the rashness of a few. And if no council exists on a new question, then collate the writings of the Fathers, and whatever all or nearly all have held…that is to be believed.” (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins)). | | Council of Ephesus (431) – Canon 7 | “It is not permitted to produce, write, or compose any other Creed besides that defined by the holy Fathers at Nicaea…[Clergy doing so to convert from heresy] if bishops or clerics, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be anathematized.” (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) | | Pope St. Leo I – Epistle 28 (Tome to Flavian) (449) | “Let novelty cease to attack, let now the universal faith know that nothing has been taken away from the creed of Nicaea, but that everything later, by which the heresies were destroyed, is in agreement with it.” (Leo emphasizes continuity of later teachings with prior creed.) | | St. Gregory the Great (Pope) – Ep. I,24 (c. 590) | “I confess that I receive and revere, like the four books of the holy Gospel, the four Councils…of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon. On them, as on a four-square stone, rises the structure of the faith. Whoever does not hold their solidity, even if he be seen as a stone, lies outside the building.” (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason) (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason). He adds: “The fifth council I equally venerate…” (St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason). | | Council of Constantinople III (680) – Definition | “Following the five holy ecumenical councils and the holy Fathers, we teach…our Lord Jesus Christ is one…acknowledged in two natural wills and two natural operations, preserving unconfusedly, inseparably…And we preach…according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And we declare that Peter, the leader of the apostles, spoke through Agatho [the Pope]…and we accept his letter as in harmony with great Peter’s confession and all councils.” (Paraphrase combining acts). (Shows council grounding new definition in prior Tradition and papal letter as authoritative.) | | Council of Nicaea II (787) – Decree | “We, preserving the tradition of the Catholic Church, define with all exactness and care: our Lord God…gave us a tradition…For as the praiseworthy representation of the cross, so also the venerable images…whether in paintings or mosaics or other fit materials, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God… For by so much as these are continually seen, by so much the beholders are lifted up to the memory of the originals… We thus follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions we have received. If anyone does not admit the Gospel proclamation, whether written or unwritten, let him be anathema.” (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) (Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals) (Combining parts of decree and anathema). |

Each of these quotes reinforces that the Church of 325–1054 saw Scripture and Tradition as a harmonious whole. They upheld Scripture as God’s Word, but insisted on the Church’s living Tradition (through councils, Fathers, liturgy, etc.) as the authentic context for that Word. Sola scriptura, as later understood, finds no support in these authoritative voices – instead, what emerges is the Catholic/Orthodox principle that the Bible is the supreme written authority, but its true meaning and the fullness of Christian truth are preserved and taught within the continuous life of the Church by the Holy Spirit.