Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Authority

[Non_Serviam]

Or a believer could feel that Irenaeus is just one man and not the entirety of truth. I’m not saying I feel that way but many Protestants don’t look to the early fathers as the be-all, end-all of ecclesiastical polity and theological truth. Over the years in CAF I have seen the ECF’s quoted for all sorts of proofs of certain theological points but when an opponent, we’ll call poster B makes a different point than that of poster A, poster A can just say, ‘yeah, well, the ECF’s aren’t infallible, that was just Ignatius of Antioch’s opinion.’ But if poster A wants to prove later the Real Presence, he plucks a statement from Ignatius about the Eucharist and sees it as all the evidence he needs. But if poster B reads, let’s pretend, a statement that sounds like all bishops were equal and the pope wasn’t the supreme head of the bishops, poster B again says, ‘yeah well, that’s just his opinion.’

Sorry folks-bit of a bad day for me, so I’m late to the discussion-but essentially I agree with what is written above-the church does read back into the ECF’s and cheery pick whatever they find useful. It is always funny for me when a Catholic starts to quote Origen and Tertullian to me as “proof” of Catholic doctrine.

It is useful to see what the Fathers have written on a topic-Real Presence is one that is unambiguously present in the vast majority (but then again it is in Scripture as well). That said, the idea of contradicting a clear passage of NT Scripture with an ambiguous quote from a Father (often eisegeted with more content than the quote can bear) doesn’t do justice to the Apostolic origin of the NT.

Likewise TriuneUnity’s point that the Fathers can’t be assumed to vouch for something that has developed after them, any more than it can be assumed that the weather forecast in last week’s paper will be right about today’s weather.

Finally, I always take the report of one Father with a grain of salt, given the fact that there is little if any external support for the role of these individuals in the church or what percentage of a Father’s writings represents common doctrine and what percentage represents his own opinion.

What we do know is that later copyists put their efforts into copying documents that proved useful to them and documents that appeared to support one side in a contention were copied by that side while those supporting the other side were copied by them.

Without a wide range of Fathers commenting on an issue, one always has to wonder what was left uncopied because it didn’t find a champion in later years. Keep in mind that the church let the Didache drop out of site after 400 AD-perhaps if it had promoted a Monarchical Episcopate that wouldn’t have happened. As it is we are fortunate to have it to compare its teachings with those claimed to be a part of “Tradition”.

 

[simspt]

Can you clarify what you mean by its objectification of itself? I just want to make sure I rightly understand what you’re asking.

I think many Catholics would argue that norm is the rule of faith, the tradition in the Church. They would point out that Christians existed decades before the NT writings existed and that essentially the Gospels whether written by eyewitnesses or non-eyewitness who received the tradition(majority of scholars view vs tradional view) are the tradition of the Church. This tradition through historical succession would be ultimatley used to objectify itself in the canon. I dont think this view can be easily dismissed. This position does not obviously deny the inspiration of those Scriptures or make those Scriptures inspired.

 

[simspt]

Keep in mind that the church let the Didache drop out of site after 400 AD-perhaps if it had promoted a Monarchical Episcopate that wouldn’t have happened. As it is we are fortunate to have it to compare its teachings with those claimed to be a part of “Tradition”.

You assume much here yourself. That there was both Churches during Pauls missions that had both single leadership and others that were more diverse in leadership and that these Churches were in communion with each other is likely. As the Church grew without a monarchial structure more problems arised (most likey Corinth) until eventually the monarchial structure was the norm. This provided better unity for sure.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think many Catholics would argue that norm is the rule of faith, the tradition in the Church. They would point out that Christians existed decades before the NT writings existed and that essentially the Gospels whether written by eyewitnesses or non-eyewitness who received the tradition(majority of scholars view vs tradional view) are the tradition of the Church. This tradition throught historical succession would be ultimatley used to objectify itself in the canon. I dont think this view can be easily dismissed. This position does not obviously deny the inspiration of those Scriptures or make those Scriptures inspired.

I, and most other conservative, traditional Protestants whose churches trace themselves to the time of the Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) would not have a problem with tradition as you have described it. It is, what we perceive as unbiblical, the particular concept of Tradition that is taught by Rome and Orthodoxy that we reject. What we reject is the concept of Sacred Tradition that is separate from and found outside of, the Holy Scriptures. We assert that Scripture is the only inspired, infallible, and supreme norm that is possessed by the Church today.

The rule of faith was a summary of the apostolic doctrine preserved by the Church, taught to the catechumens and gradually inscripturated in complete form in the canonical books by the Apostles. The rule of faith functioned as a hermeneutical context for the Church in the centuries following the death of the Apostles. The Church recognized heretics in this formative era because they did not interpret Scripture according to the rule of faith.

In the conception of the early church, the idea of tradition was not incompatible with an understanding of Scripture as the sole source of divine revelation. Tradition was simply the body of doctrine committed to the Church by Christ and His Apostles whether through written or oral revelation. The content of the revelation was the same regardless of the mode of revelation. Paul did not preach one doctrine orally and another doctrine when he wrote his epistles. The oral tradition was gradually written down over time in the books of the NT. There was no secret, separate revelation that was known only by a select few. The early Church viewed Scripture and tradition as coinherent concepts. There was no conflict and could never be, because the content was the same.

The concept of Tradition as a separate, differing form of revelation as taught by Rome and Orthodoxy was a foreign concept to the early church. When Luther and the reformers went about formulating their doctrine of sola scriptura, it was the concept of the early church to which they looked. The reason that doctrines like the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, etc are rejected is not because they are Tradition, but because they are not tradition, as understood by the early church.

 

[simspt]

. What we reject is the concept of Sacred Tradition that is separate from and found outside of, the Holy Scriptures. We assert that Scripture is the only inspired, infallible, and supreme norm that is possessed by the Church today.

The rule of faith functioned as a hermeneutical context for the Church in the centuries following the death of the Apostles. The Church recognized heretics in this formative era because they did not interpret Scripture according to the rule of faith.

In the conception of the early church, the idea of tradition was not incompatible with an understanding of Scripture as the sole source of divine revelation. .

I agree it seems the tradition or rule of faith was used to interpret Scripture. This implies that Scripture was a source thought to be authoritative but required the aid of tradition (historically passed on through the Church) for its interpretation. Therefore wouldnt the tradition come first and be separate from but not in contradiction to the Scriptures. Chronlogically it seems the sole source of divine revelation was first Apostolic preaching and tradition passed on in the Church and later on the NT writings came into the picture. This would make sense with the Church objectifying itself in relation to the cannon.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree it seems the tradition or rule of faith was used to interpret Scripture. This implies that Scripture was a source thought to be authoritative but required the aid of tradition (historically passed on through the Church) for its interpretation. Therefore wouldnt the tradition come first and be separate from but not in contradiction to the Scriptures. Chronlogically it seems the sole source of divine revelation was first Apostolic preaching and tradition passed on in the Church and later on the NT writings came into the picture. This would make sense with the Church objectifying itself in relation to the cannon.

It would be separate from the Scriptures only by way of how it was revealed. That doesn’t change, however, its content from what is inscripturated. This is precisely the problem with the Roman and Eastern definition of tradition. It becomes something wholly other than this and instead becomes a body of teachings to which no one now has access (unlike actual apostolic tradition, which is preserved in Scripture), except by some mystic virtue given to those within a caste system of clergy, is not referenced anywhere in the apostolic writings, and is not even referenced in the earliest documentation of the church.

However, in relation to which came first, well, ultimately, the original source of revelation is Christ Himself in His ministry and work on earth. Apostolic preaching, however, is something we don’t have access to anymore, we only have access to their writings. The Church has preserved the rule of faith in the form of creeds. However, Scripture is the only inspired, infallible word of God that the Church possesses today (notice that the sola scriptura principle, only applies to the post-apostolic period).

 

[simspt]

Apostolic preaching, however, is something we don’t have access to anymore, we only have access to their writings. The Church has preserved the rule of faith in the form of creeds. However, Scripture is the only inspired, infallible word of God that the Church possesses today (notice that the sola scriptura principle, only applies to the post-apostolic period).

Is it not the same Church today that gave us the Gospels that existed in the sub-apostolic and post-apostolic period and protected their correct interpretation and finally canonized those writings. I agree the Church is bound by those writings however to speak of those scriptures apart from the Church historically (sola scriptura) is hard for me to comprehend. That seems to minimize the importance of the Church and makes it hard to understand the canon.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is it not the same Church today that gave us the Gospels that existed in the sub-apostolic and post-apostolic period and protected their correct interpretation and finally canonized those writings. I agree the Church is bound by those writings however to speak of those scriptures apart from the Church historically (sola scriptura) is hard for me to comprehend. That seems to minimize the importance of the Church and makes it hard to understand the canon.

Lutheran theology differs from Reformed theology in that it lays great emphasis on the fact that the evangelical church is none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain teachings and abuses. The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged. The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church, not the church of the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council which renounced evangelical truth when it rejected the Reformation. For the orthodox evangelical church is really identical with the orthodox Catholic Church of all times. And just as the very nature of the Reformed Church emphasizes its strong opposition to the medieval church, so the very nature of the Lutheran Church requires it to go to the farthest possible limit in its insistence on its solidarity and identity with the Catholic Church. It was no mere ecclesiastico-political diplomacy which dictated the emphatic assertion in the Augsburg Confession that the teachings of the Evangelicals were identical with those of the orthodox Catholic Church of all ages, and no more was it romanticism or false conservatism which made our church anxious to retain as much of the old canonical law as possible, and to cling tenaciously to the old forms of worship. - Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand (trans. Theodore Tappert), Augsburg Publishing House, 1938, pp. 110-11.

 

[SteveVH]

Lutheran theology differs from Reformed theology in that it lays great emphasis on the fact that the evangelical church is none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain teachings and abuses. The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged. The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church, not the church of the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council which renounced evangelical truth when it rejected the Reformation. For the orthodox evangelical church is really identical with the orthodox Catholic Church of all times. And just as the very nature of the Reformed Church emphasizes its strong opposition to the medieval church, so the very nature of the Lutheran Church requires it to go to the farthest possible limit in its insistence on its solidarity and identity with the Catholic Church. It was no mere ecclesiastico-political diplomacy which dictated the emphatic assertion in the Augsburg Confession that the teachings of the Evangelicals were identical with those of the orthodox Catholic Church of all ages, and no more was it romanticism or false conservatism which made our church anxious to retain as much of the old canonical law as possible, and to cling tenaciously to the old forms of worship. - Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand (trans. Theodore Tappert), Augsburg Publishing House, 1938, pp. 110-11.

 

[SteveVH]

I, and most other conservative, traditional Protestants whose churches trace themselves to the time of the Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) would not have a problem with tradition as you have described it. It is, what we perceive as unbiblical, the particular concept of Tradition that is taught by Rome and Orthodoxy that we reject. What we reject is the concept of Sacred Tradition that is separate from and found outside of, the Holy Scriptures. We assert that Scripture is the only inspired, infallible, and supreme norm that is possessed by the Church today.

The rule of faith was a summary of the apostolic doctrine preserved by the Church, taught to the catechumens and gradually inscripturated in complete form in the canonical books by the Apostles. The rule of faith functioned as a hermeneutical context for the Church in the centuries following the death of the Apostles. The Church recognized heretics in this formative era because they did not interpret Scripture according to the rule of faith.

In the conception of the early church, the idea of tradition was not incompatible with an understanding of Scripture as the sole source of divine revelation. Tradition was simply the body of doctrine committed to the Church by Christ and His Apostles whether through written or oral revelation. The content of the revelation was the same regardless of the mode of revelation. Paul did not preach one doctrine orally and another doctrine when he wrote his epistles. The oral tradition was gradually written down over time in the books of the NT. There was no secret, separate revelation that was known only by a select few. The early Church viewed Scripture and tradition as coinherent concepts. There was no conflict and could never be, because the content was the same.

The concept of Tradition as a separate, differing form of revelation as taught by Rome and Orthodoxy was a foreign concept to the early church. When Luther and the reformers went about formulating their doctrine of sola scriptura, it was the concept of the early church to which they looked. The reason that doctrines like the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, etc are rejected is not because they are Tradition, but because they are not tradition, as understood by the early church.

Wow. A lot happens when you’re away for a day or two. Much has been said since my last post on this thread so pardon me if I don’t beat a dead horse by answering questions which seem, for the most part, to already be answered by others.

I’ll just let the Church speak for itself. Agree or disagree.

“* Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine well spring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve the word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certaintly about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradtion and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.*” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 9.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ll just let the Church speak for itself. Agree or disagree.

“* Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine well spring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve the word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certaintly about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradtion and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.*” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 9.)

Disagree; this is again teaching that there are two different sources of revelation that contain different doctrines. Some here, some there (partim-partim).

Revelation has one source, and one content. This source began orally with the proclamation of the Apostles. The Church summarizes this apostolic teaching in the creeds of the faith. However, because the oral tradition as revelation (i.e. the preaching of the apostles) is no longer present in the Church, and the Apostles knew that they would eventually pass from the earth, the content of their Apostolic preaching was inscripurated in the New Testament. This inscripturation has the authority of the Holy Spirit behind it. Because of this fact, it is the only mode of revelation that the Church has access to. This is why it serves as the norm which norms all other norms. When we say sola scriptura, we do not mean “Scripture alone,” we mean “Scripture is the only infallible, inerrant, God-breathed revelation that the Church has. Therefore, it is our only infallible, inerrant, God-breathed authority.”

Because the creeds faithfully summarize tradition, the Church cannot interpret the Scriptures apart from this rule of faith; the rule of faith (tradition) is fully coinherent with the teachings of Scripture. This is why we do not accept traditions which contradict Scripture, because if it does, it isn’t tradition.

 

[SteveVH]

Disagree; this is again teaching that there are two different sources of revelation that contain different doctrines. Some here, some there (partim-partim).

What part of “flowing from the same divine well spring” teaches that there are different sources of revelation?

Revelation has one source, and one content. This source began orally with the proclamation of the Apostles. The Church summarizes this apostolic teaching in the creeds of the faith. However, because the oral tradition as revelation (i.e. the preaching of the apostles) is no longer present in the Church, and the Apostles knew that they would eventually pass from the earth, the content of their Apostolic preaching was inscripurated in the New Testament. This inscripturation has the authority of the Holy Spirit behind it. Because of this fact, it is the only mode of revelation that the Church has access to. This is why it serves as the norm which norms all other norms. When we say sola scriptura, we do not mean “Scripture alone,” we mean “Scripture is the only infallible, inerrant, God-breathed revelation that the Church has. Therefore, it is our only infallible, inerrant, God-breathed authority.”

Because the creeds faithfully summarize tradition, the Church cannot interpret the Scriptures apart from this rule of faith; the rule of faith (tradition) is fully coinherent with the teachings of Scripture. This is why we do not accept traditions which contradict Scripture, because if it does, it isn’t tradition.

Well why don’t you give me an example of Catholic Tradition that contradicts Scripture? I happen to agree with you and so would the Church. If it contradicts Scripture it isn’t Tradition.

 

[TriuneUnity]

What part of “flowing from the same divine well spring” teaches that there are different sources of revelation?

I can see why that would cause confusion. Let me restate. We would both agree that the source is God. In that sense, it is one divine well-spring. What we reject is that this one source revealed doctrines spread over two sources. One Scripture, and the other Tradition. So that you have to go here to find one doctrine and there to find another. We would state that there is one source, which began orally and then was written down. Both the oral mode and the written mode contain the same content. By looking at Scripture, you will find everything in tradition and vice versa.

Well why don’t you give me an example of Catholic Tradition that contradicts Scripture? I happen to agree with you and so would the Church. If it contradicts Scripture it isn’t Tradition.

I want to, in fairness, make it clear, though, that I am not solely aiming my arguments against Rome. Both East and West would fall into this category, lest you think I am unfairly targeting Catholic traditions.

Papal infallibility, the invocation of the saints, purgatory, the assumption of Mary, the infallibility of ecumenical councils, the teachings on justification, the doctrine of the Mass.

 

[TriuneUnity]

As a matter of contrast to the Roman and Orthodox communions view of Scripture/Tradition, and to further clarify our own, this is the Lutheran confessional statement on sola scriptura, from the Formula of Concord:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
   Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
3. As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.
   And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.
   To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.
   In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.
   But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned.

 

[Non_Serviam]

You assume much here yourself. That there was both Churches during Pauls missions that had both single leadership and others that were more diverse in leadership and that these Churches were in communion with each other is likely. As the Church grew without a monarchial structure more problems arised (most likey Corinth) until eventually the monarchial structure was the norm. This provided better unity for sure.

Your statement proves my point exactly. There was diversity on a number of points in the times of the Apostles and to insist that only one of those options is “Tradition” isn’t kosher. Yet many on here do just that and twist and tweak Scrpiture to try and get Paul and some of the ECF’s to read like the current practices of the Catholic church.

If Catholics want to make the argument that the Monarchical Episcopate developed later into the primary form of church government because of efficacy or unity or some other criterion, that’s fine, and the case can be made. That also permits others to make the case that it has an increased risk of abuse of authority and heresy than a plural episcopate. Then discussion can occur and changes can be made as needed.

There’s a difference between something becoming the “norm” and it being the sole teaching of the Apostles. That’s why Scripture is essential in providing a plumb line by which the church’s “balance” can always be measured

 

[Non_Serviam]

Well why don’t you give me an example of Catholic Tradition that contradicts Scripture? I happen to agree with you and so would the Church. If it contradicts Scripture it isn’t Tradition.

I want to, in fairness, make it clear, though, that I am not solely aiming my arguments against Rome. Both East and West would fall into this category, lest you think I am unfairly targeting Catholic traditions.

Papal infallibility, the invocation of the saints, purgatory, the assumption of Mary, the infallibility of ecumenical councils, the teachings on justification, the doctrine of the Mass.

Let me add that not everything is inherently wrong, rather it is the dogmatization of these things making them de fidei and thus necessary for salvation where the contradiction with Scripture occurs. For example, it is possible that Mary was assumed into heaven. There is nothing in Scripture for or against the belief, but that lack of reference in Scripture is the reason why it can’t be part of the rule of faith.

 

[TriuneUnity]

There’s a difference between something becoming the “norm” and it being the sole teaching of the Apostles. That’s why Scripture is essential in providing a plumb line by which the church’s “balance” can always be measured

Indeed. Which is why we reject any form of church government as being divinely mandated, whether episcopal, congregational, or presbyterian. From the time of the Apostles onward, at various stages in the history of the church, these forms of church governance can be found. Scripture mandates the office of the ministry (in its various forms and functions, the office of elder being the chief center), but never mandates a particular polity of how those offices are to be organized. That the monarchical episcopate developed and became the dominant form of government in the West is not indicative of apostolic command. It is a rite and custom developed for good church order.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’m reading Diarmaid MacColloch’s Christianity at the moment and this quote seemed like it might provide some grist for the mill on this topic:

The Bible of the Church was itself a disputed text at least until late in the second
century of the Christian era. But even when Christians had argued their way to a
consensus as to which texts should be included in the Bible and which should not, they
encountered a problem common to all Peoples of the Book. Judaism, Christianity and
Islam have all discovered that the text between the covers cannot provide all the answers.
Hence the growth of a vast array of pronouncements, interpretations and pragmatic
solutions to new problems which formed bodies of tradition in various parts of
Christianity. As early as the fourth century CE, a respected Christian authority in the
eastern Mediterranean, Basil of Caesarea, was saying that some traditions were as
important and authoritative as the Bible itself. It was one of the big issues of the
European Reformation, whether any of this tradition beyond scripture should be regarded
as part of the essential kit of being a Christian. Roman Catholics said yes - the official
Church was the guardian of the tradition and must be obeyed in all things. Protestants
said no - most of the tradition was part of the confidence trick played on ordinary
Christians by the Church, diverting them from the glorious simplicity of the biblical
message. Protestants were not consistent on this, for otherwise they could not justify
aspects of their own Christianity not found in scripture, like the universal baptism of
infants. Radicals who believed in scripture alone criticized them as hypocrites, with some
justice.

 

[SteveVH]

I can see why that would cause confusion.

It isn’t confusing to me at all and I think the Church is very clear.

We would both agree that the source is God. In that sense, it is one divine well-spring. What we reject is that this one source revealed doctrines spread over two sources. One Scripture, and the other Tradition. So that you have to go here to find one doctrine and there to find another. We would state that there is one source, which began orally and then was written down. Both the oral mode and the written mode contain the same content. By looking at Scripture, you will find everything in tradition and vice versa

I want to, in fairness, make it clear, though, that I am not solely aiming my arguments against Rome. Both East and West would fall into this category, lest you think I am unfairly targeting Catholic traditions.

Papal infallibility, the invocation of the saints, purgatory, the assumption of Mary, the infallibility of ecumenical councils, the teachings on justification, the doctrine of the Mass.

The Bible isteslt attests to the fact that “not everything” was written down. You are required to believe this because you must depend on the Bible as your only source. You have no other. I would argue that none of the doctrines listed above contradicts scripture. Each one of these could be a thread in itself, however, and once again we are in a position of defending an accusation with a few lines which cannot help but be inadequate. If you have any suggerstions I will be happy to defend my statement but we would have to take each doctrine alone. It would take pages and would derail this thread.

I have to say of all of the above I am surprised that you bring up the Mass, since the liturgy is one thing that Luther did hold onto. Read the last part of Revelation if you want to see the Mass in Scripture.

 

[simspt]

Your statement proves my point exactly. There was diversity on a number of points in the times of the Apostles and to insist that only one of those options is “Tradition” isn’t kosher. Yet many on here do just that and twist and tweak Scrpiture to try and get Paul and some of the ECF’s to read like the current practices of the Catholic church.

If Catholics want to make the argument that the Monarchical Episcopate developed later into the primary form of church government because of efficacy or unity or some other criterion, that’s fine, and the case can be made. That also permits others to make the case that it has an increased risk of abuse of authority and heresy than a plural episcopate. Then discussion can occur and changes can be made as needed.

There’s a difference between something becoming the “norm” and it being the sole teaching of the Apostles. That’s why Scripture is essential in providing a plumb line by which the church’s “balance” can always be measured

You make too many assumptions in my opinion. I think there is evidence that there was diversity in the early Church stucture but that by no means contradicts the Catholic episcopate as it stands today. The Dead Sea Scrolls show paralles between the twelve functioning as a council and the Qumran leadership structure. They had a definitive governing structure that in my opinion it would not be surprising if these other Jews (Christians) were aware of and based their structures on or were at least influenced by. The fact that the monarchial episcopate developled as it did does not equate to it being just another form of Church government. I agree with you that there are always strengths and weaknesses with any large institution however to make the jump this somehow justifies sola scriptura is dubious.