Follow up on SS

[a_priori]

The question is simple. Using SS, who is the winner, Calvin or Arminius? Sola Scriptura is like a nuclear reactor with no containment structure. Christian dogma is determined by fallen human intellect and the force of rational Greek-style argument? Been there, done that for 30 years. Barely emerged spiritually integrated. SS is a paper mache monolith.

 

[JonNC]

How can we know that the great Schism did in fact fracture Jesus’ church and therefore its authority, derived from God? Perhaps the church to which Jesus said - the gates of hell will never prevail - continues to rightfully teach authoritatively, because God continues to infallibly and ineffably guide the church?

There was a pretty significant schism prior to the great 11th century schism. For example, the council of Chalcedon, where we see a Christological debate, and the eventual schism which ensued, which is why that council is not accepted by several of the ancient Eastern Churches that still exist today.

Today we see non-Chalcedon churches and Chalcedonian churches. If schisms can take away authority then isn’t it safe to suggest that the 5th century schism fractured Jesus’ church and therefore its authority, derived from God? After all those non-Chalcedon churches date back to the apostolic age. I suppose my point is: schisms do not necessarily end God’s authority via His church?

Hi Joe,
I certainly do not think God’s authority via His Church has ended, only that the Church Militant, of which you and I are both part, has fractured the unity of the Church. That in no way detracts from His authority, nor does it make void His promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevail, but it does wound the teaching authority of the Church.
As for the non-Chalcedonians, that schism too weakens the Church, as every schism and division does.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11910113]

I would suggest that it is problematic for Sola Scriptura advocates to suggest that the ECF’s support Sola Scriptura, because they do not, whereas it is not difficult for Catholics to suggest that the ECF’s recognized the authority of both Scripture and Tradition alongside each other, because they do.

Some would claim they do.

As for the Great Schism, which DID fracture the Church temporarily,** if it is anything at all it is proof that the Church could survive that Schism and return to unity**. I think it is remarkable and is evidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church. Protestantism has demonstrated that it has almost no ability to heal it’s internal wounds to unity. Your contention that the Schism ‘fractured the Church and it’s authority’ does not apply to the Catholic Church but very much does to Protestantism.

I pray that this unity does return, for the entire Church Militant.

If you would really be willing to return to the doctrinal positions of just after the first 7 general councils, does that mean that you would be willing to give up Sola Scriptura AND Salvation by Faith Alone?

The seven ecumenical councils are the ones that have, at least, agreement between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. That’s a good starting place. Soteriology, for me, is not the big issue anymore. Ecclesiology is, particularly universal ordinary jurisdiction, which is not found in the early councils. I would suggest that this remains the biggest sticking point, also, between east and west, and so I would be happy to return to that point.

If, as you say, the Church receives it’s teaching authority from Scripture, and that a validly authorized Church would not teach error, then the conclusion from your statement is that since the Catholic Church teaches differently than the Lutheran church, the Catholic Church does not have the ‘authority of Scripture’ to teach.

Is that your position – that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to teach?

I did not say the Church cannot teach error, and I did not say the CC has no authority to teach. The fact that our two communions teach differently is simply an example of the divisions, wounds within His Church, caused by human sin. That the Eastern Orthodox churches in unity teach differently than the Catholic Church or Lutheran Church is, again, an example of the wounds to the teaching authority of His Church. Pope Benedict, in his homily at the Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010, said that only God can heal our divisions. I pray this comes soon.

My you be blessed as we wait vigilantly for His resurrection.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

The question is simple. Using SS, who is the winner, Calvin or Arminius? Sola Scriptura is like a nuclear reactor with no containment structure. Christian dogma is determined by fallen human intellect and the force of rational Greek-style argument? Been there, done that for 30 years. Barely emerged spiritually integrated. SS is a paper mache monolith.

Hi a priori,
I am thankful to God that your faith remains and is strengthened by being in the Catholic Church. May you continue to be blessed there in word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[a_priori]

Hi a priori,
I am thankful to God that your faith remains and is strengthened by being in the Catholic Church. May you continue to be blessed there in word and sacrament.

Jon

Thank you Jon.

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
I certainly do not think God’s authority via His Church has ended, only that the Church Militant, of which you and I are both part, has fractured the unity of the Church. That in no way detracts from His authority, nor does it make void His promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevail, but it does wound the teaching authority of the Church.
As for the non-Chalcedonians, that schism too weakens the Church, as every schism and division does.

Jon

I suppose the big question remains: has the Church Militant wounded the teaching authority of Jesus’ church to the point of rendering certain doctrinal truths, that continue to divide Christianity, unknowable?

 

[JonNC]

I suppose the big question remains: has the Church Militant wounded the teaching authority of Jesus’ church to the point of rendering certain doctrinal truths, that continue to divide Christianity, unknowable?

I don’t know, Joe. As Pope Benedict said, unity will come from God. It seems to me we must pray first for forgiveness, and depend on grace for ourselves and each other, while we continue to pray and work for reconciliation.

Jon

 

[thenobes]

Of course it does. Sola scriptura depends on the Church. From a Lutheran perspective, it is a practice of the Church. All SS does is set scripture as the final norm for doctrine. So, in that sense, scripture is “sola”, alone, the final norm. No other norm is equal to it, and instead other norms are normed by it. And in the Lutheran practice, it is the Church, not individuals, that set doctrine.

Jon

So what it seems to me you are ssying is that the Church has bound itself to the practice of Sola Scriptura, using its powers to bind and loose. If so, this should be evident in a Council, shouldn’t it?

peace
steve

 

[joe371]

I don’t know, Joe. As Pope Benedict said, unity will come from God. It seems to me we must pray first for forgiveness, and depend on grace for ourselves and each other, while we continue to pray and work for reconciliation.

Jon

Hope you had a great Easter Jon. I agree with everything you said.

 

[JonNC]

So what it seems to me you are ssying is that the Church has bound itself to the practice of Sola Scriptura, using its powers to bind and loose. If so, this should be evident in a Council, shouldn’t it?

peace
steve

Hi Steve,
What I’ve said is that, for Lutherans, the Church uses the practice of sola scriptura, yes. Clearly, the Catholic Church does not, nor does Holy Orthodoxy, or even some communions loosely identified as protestant. As for the 7 ecumenical councils, obviously the practice of sola scriptura is not in them (I can’t imagine anyone claiming otherwise), but then again, neither will one find a number of doctrines that Catholic are bound to, notably universal ordinary jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[thenobes]

Hi Steve,
What I’ve said is that, for Lutherans, the Church uses the practice of sola scriptura, yes. Clearly, the Catholic Church does not, nor does Holy Orthodoxy, or even some communions loosely identified as protestant. As for the 7 ecumenical councils, obviously the practice of sola scriptura is not in them (I can’t imagine anyone claiming otherwise), but then again, neither will one find a number of doctrines that Catholic are bound to, notably universal ordinary jurisdiction.

Jon

Hah! Almost said touche there when I read that!

But I believe universal ordinary jurisdiction can be gathered from scripture, logic and Sacred Tradition, but that’s for another thread no?

Sorry to have jumped into the thread so late with respect to a much earlier post.

Paz,
steve

 

[JonNC]

Hah! Almost said touche there when I read that!

But I believe universal ordinary jurisdiction can be gathered from scripture, logic and Sacred Tradition, but that’s for another thread no?

Sorry to have jumped into the thread so late with respect to a much earlier post.

Paz,
steve

Happy you jumped in, Steve.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. I hope that you and yours had a wonderful Blessed Easter.

Some would claim they do.

I know that some people believe that some of the Fathers’ quotes could be used to support Sola Scriptura. But as we both know, making a claim and supporting it with something substantial are often two entirely different things. This is one of those situations. I would suggest that while there may be people here who believe that, nobody is going to be so bold as to attempt to actually post quotes from a Father, out of concern that that same Father may then be quoted to prove that that particular Father did NOT support Sola Scriptura. Better to make the claim in a very general way than to actually put some chips on the table and then lose them.

I did not say the Church cannot teach error, and I did not say the CC has no authority to teach. The fact that our two communions teach differently is simply an example of the divisions, wounds within His Church, caused by human sin. That the Eastern Orthodox churches in unity teach differently than the Catholic Church or Lutheran Church is, again, an example of the wounds to the teaching authority of His Church. Pope Benedict, in his homily at the Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010, said that only God can heal our divisions. I pray this comes soon.

First of all, I believe that we are all responsible for working towards a complete reunion. That includes honest and open dialogue about the things that divide us and the reasons for those divisions.

It seems that you are saying that the Church CAN teach error. I disagree, although if you include all of the various Protestant communions as being part of the ‘Church’ in the strictest sense, then obviously the ‘Church’ as defined IS teaching error, or, at least some portions of it are. If we go with that definition, then we have to conclude that the Gates of Hell HAVE prevailed and have defeated the Church’s teaching Authority as the ‘pillar and bulwark of the Truth.’

I agree that our two communions teaching differently is the result of human sin, but exactly in the same way when the Arians, Nestorians, and Montanists taught differently than the Catholic Church. All of those groups did not invalidate the teaching authority of the Catholic Church – either.

Again, I take issues with this concept that ‘Scripture authorizes’ a Church to teach. Be that as it may be, whatever it might be that ‘authorizes’ a Church to teach (Christ possibly?), if two different communions teach differently, then AT LEAST one of them is NOT divinely ‘authorized’. Possibly both of them are teaching in error, but IF they teach differently, then at least one is NOT teaching Christianity correctly. IF the Catholic Church is teaching correctly, then the Lutheran churches are NOT teaching Christianity correctly, and vice versa.

If we follow your logic, we would conclude that Christ either didn’t care enough about what we know about Christian doctrine to have set in place a system where His teachings would be protected OR that he wanted to, but couldn’t. Personally I believe in a Christ who COULD provide us with a way that we could know his Doctrinal Truths with certainty, and in fact, DID. It seems to me that Sola Scriptura Christians don’t have that ‘level’ of Faith in Him, or believe that He was not ‘able’ to institute a ‘system’ that actually works.

Which of course gets us back to how we actually ‘got’ Sola Scriptura. As we have read, SS, rather than being found in the Fathers, was a 16th century invention. Luther was the ‘inventor’, or the ‘re-inventor’, if you must.

In fact, he basically believed that he could create a whole system of theology out of his own personal interpretations of Scripture, which of course, means that is extremely important to make sure we know who he really was.

Jon, in your opinion, by what ‘authority’ did Luther create a system of theology out of his Private Interpretations?

As we know, Luther’s SS has greatly damaged Christian unity.

If you see it differently, I would appreciate knowing specifically and exactly how and why.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[commenter]

The question is simple. Using SS, who is the winner, Calvin or Arminius? Sola Scriptura is like a nuclear reactor with no containment structure. Christian dogma is determined by fallen human intellect and the force of rational Greek-style argument? Been there, done that for 30 years. Barely emerged spiritually integrated. SS is a paper mache monolith.

Here I used to think my own analogies to affirm the Magisterium were pushing the envelope a little…

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11918532]Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. I hope that you and yours had a wonderful Blessed Easter.

And also with you and yours.

I know that some people believe that some of the Fathers’ quotes could be used to support Sola Scriptura. But as we both know, making a claim and supporting it with something substantial are often two entirely different things. This is one of those situations. I would suggest that while there may be people here who believe that, nobody is going to be so bold as to attempt to actually post quotes from a Father, out of concern that that same Father may then be quoted to prove that that particular Father did NOT support Sola Scriptura. Better to make the claim in a very general way than to actually put some chips on the table and then lose them.

Well, I think that’s my point precisely, that since the Fathers did not speak to the issue, having no knowledge of the dispute, either side can use the Fathers to support their view, followed by a refutation from the other side using the same Fathers.

That said:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.solascriptura.html

And, of course, I expect and know you can provide quotes that refute.

First of all, I believe that we are all responsible for working towards a complete reunion. That includes honest and open dialogue about the things that divide us and the reasons for those divisions.

I agree, though I tend to believe that, in dialogue, each side has the privilege of defining and explaining what they believe, not what the dialogue partner believes. Further, the Lutheran / Catholic dialogue has done an excellent job over the years of providing the reasons and history for our divisions as background, while focusing on prayerfully searching for solutions.

It seems that you are saying that the Church CAN teach error. I disagree, although if you include all of the various Protestant communions as being part of the ‘Church’ in the strictest sense, then obviously the ‘Church’ as defined IS teaching error, or, at least some portions of it are. If we go with that definition, then we have to conclude that the Gates of Hell HAVE prevailed and have defeated the Church’s teaching Authority as the ‘pillar and bulwark of the Truth.’

Clearly, error has been taught in the history of the Church Militant. I reject, however, the claim that Christ fails because humans are sinful, and do not always discern His truth. For the gates of Hell to prevail, it must, of course, prevail against the Church Triumphant, as well as the Church Militant (and the Church Suffering, if you will). Further, since the term “shall not” is used, signifying future tense, we can assume that Christ is not talking past or present tense alone, but “in the end”.

Again, I take issues with this concept that ‘Scripture authorizes’ a Church to teach. Be that as it may be, whatever it might be that ‘authorizes’ a Church to teach (Christ possibly?),

Well, of course Christ - and we find His words in Scripture.

if two different communions teach differently, then AT LEAST one of them is NOT divinely ‘authorized’. Possibly both of them are teaching in error, but IF they teach differently, then at least one is NOT teaching Christianity correctly. IF the Catholic Church is teaching correctly, then the Lutheran churches are NOT teaching Christianity correctly, and vice versa.

Perhaps, but I tend to think that, in many ways, our two communions often express the same beliefs in different ways. We are seeing this in some of the dialogue statements that, even when not complete, often find common ground where none was thought to exist.
That’s not a statement of relativism, but one of fact. Much, I think, revolves around what is desired. If the desire is to prop up division and animosity, division and animosity will prevail. If the prayerful desire is unity, the Spirit can work though that.

continued, and sorry for the length of the response

 

[JonNC]

If we follow your logic, we would conclude that Christ either didn’t care enough about what we know about Christian doctrine to have set in place a system where His teachings would be protected OR that he wanted to, but couldn’t. Personally I believe in a Christ who COULD provide us with a way that we could know his Doctrinal Truths with certainty, and in fact, DID.

Again, this assumes that humans will always discern His will, and follow it. I, too, think there are certain doctrinal truths, but even a thousand years ago, humans, bishops, patriarchs!, could not agree on those doctrinal truths. That’s not an indictment of the Church, or the Holy Spirit, but instead an indictment of us. It should call our attention to St. Paul’s, remark about the wrong I would do, that I do, and the right I would do, that I do not. I do not understand myself, or Christians, either.

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura Christians don’t have that ‘level’ of Faith in Him, or believe that He was not ‘able’ to institute a ‘system’ that actually works.

I’ve heard some non-Catholics accuse Catholics of the same; “those Catholics trust the pope, not Christ.” I don’t believe either. I believe both are expressing their faith, usually, in the way they were raised. That’s not a comment about who is right and who is wrong, just that we often fail to see His Spirit working in others - we’re all guilty of that!

Jon, in your opinion, by what ‘authority’ did Luther create a system of theology out of his Private Interpretations?

Nothing Luther believed came out of whole cloth, but the issue of authority is approached differently by different communions. For Orthodoxy, it seems authority is in the local bishop, in communion with other bishops. Your authority is more hierarchical. In my synod, authority tends to be both locally and in the synod. The problem, long before Luther, is that authority had been dispersed through schism.
Lutherans do not recognize any special authority in Luther, other than that of a pastor and theologian, one who we believe was right on some things, and obviously wrong on others. But regardless of what Luther thought, the issue becomes how do we solve our divisions. Can two differing principles for doctrine find a unity of doctrine?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

And also with you.
Jon

 

[a_priori]

Here I used to think my own analogies to affirm the Magisterium were pushing the envelope a little…

I think analogies tend to fall short and some are a little lame. But the fact remains that SS is dangerous because it allows anyone to create their own hermeneutic and swear by it…even as a zillion other mutually-exclusive interpretations all claim the top position.

 

[commenter]

I think analogies tend to fall short and some are a little lame. But the fact remains that SS is dangerous because it allows anyone to create their own hermeneutic and swear by it…even as a zillion other mutually-exclusive interpretations all claim the top position.

Yes. Historically Protestants followed the Magisterium without being explicitly aware of it. It is hard to explain the canon of the NT without the Magisterium - that it was opened, a tiny number of books were chosen, the great majority rejected, and it was closed. The rare Protestants that refused to accept the closing of the canon - like the Mormons - rejected by other Protestants in the past. When Sola Scriptura supporters cite other non-magisterium sources of a canon, like ancient scholars, Sacred Tradition, and councils that ratified the canon, they overlook that some Magisterium designated which scholars’ biblical (name removed by moderator)ut are “orthodox”, which 1% of traditions are reliableTradition, who would attend the canon-choosing councils, and which councils and “scriptures” could be ignored - probably the great majority of Christian (name removed by moderator)ut was disregarded.

It could be argued that it didn’t really matter if Protestants failed to recognize the Magisterium as long as they followed orthodox Christianity anyway. But we are living in a new era, when some Protestant churches and some anti-Magisterium individual Catholics are formally rejecting even the most ancient Christian natural law and morality, and now some are adding books to the New Testament. (Who’s to say the canon is “closed”? If you think the canon was closed by consensus, it can now be reopened by consensus.) If you think traditions like gnosticism were ruled out by a democratic vote of the faith community, they can be ruled in now, the same way.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

Yes. Historically Protestants followed the Magisterium without being explicitly aware of it. It is hard to explain the canon of the NT without the Magisterium - that it was opened, a tiny number of books were chosen, the great majority rejected, and it was closed. The rare Protestants that refused to accept the closing of the canon - like the Mormons - rejected by other Protestants in the past. When Sola Scriptura supporters cite other non-magisterium sources of a canon, like ancient scholars, Sacred Tradition, and councils that ratified the canon, they overlook that some Magisterium designated which scholars’ biblical (name removed by moderator)ut are “orthodox”, which 1% of traditions are reliableTradition, who would attend the canon-choosing councils, and which councils and “scriptures” could be ignored - probably the great majority of Christian (name removed by moderator)ut was disregarded.

It could be argued that it didn’t really matter if Protestants failed to recognize the Magisterium as long as they followed orthodox Christianity anyway. But we are living in a new era, when some Protestant churches and some anti-Magisterium individual Catholics are formally rejecting even the most ancient Christian natural law and morality, and now some are adding books to the New Testament. (Who’s to say the canon is “closed”? If you think the canon was closed by consensus, it can now be reopened by consensus.) If you think traditions like gnosticism were ruled out by a democratic vote of the faith community, they can be ruled in now, the same way.

I don’t believe the canon was closed. Not at Trent anyway. I can’t point to exactly where it deals with the canon in Trent, I apologize for the lack of evidence for my claims. I have been through this topic before and researched. I came up with Luther closing the canon and the. Church leaving the canon open. If anyone can correct me on this, I’d appreciate it!

Richard Feynman

 

[JonNC]

I don’t believe the canon was closed. Not at Trent anyway. I can’t point to exactly where it deals with the canon in Trent, I apologize for the lack of evidence for my claims. I have been through this topic before and researched. I came up with Luther closing the canon and the. Church leaving the canon open. If anyone can correct me on this, I’d appreciate it!

Richard Feynman

I think you have it backwards, Richard. While not presuming to speak for Catholicism, this from the Council of Trent::

Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema

On the other hand, the Book of Concord does not list a closed canon. While Luther certainly had his opinion about books, his opinion does not constitute whether or not the canon is open or closed.

Jon