Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

=paul c;9683107]Well, I don’t know which non-Protestants you speak of, but you don’t decide what is Catholic Tradition but the views of those in dissent. Catholic Tradition is defined by the Church hierarchy and can be traced back readily though the Early Church Fathers right to the Apostles.After all, one of the earliest works of a church Father, the letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians is demonstrating Papal primacy during the first century.

Hi Paul,
I was referring to Orthodoxy.

Local councils aren’t binding on the entire church but Papal proclamations are. As for the Orthodox, I can’t speak for them. The fact that there are disputes about the canon certainly detracts from the argument that they are the sole source of revelation. After all, how can they be when you need another source to define what scripture is real?

Which truly general council gave the Bisdhop of Rome this power? Certainly none of the 7.

yes, that was exactly my point. The reason that the Protestant reformers introduced the concept of sola scriptura was to support their schism. After all, if you abandon Catholic Tradition, your only link to Christ is the scripture, which can be manipulated to say anything you want by defining your own interpretation. In fact, Charles Manson used Revelation to justify Helter Skelter. And that is the danger of Sola Scriptura. Not to equate Luther to Manson, just showing how the concept can be taken to extremes

No, I believe it was, at least in part, preceisely because of the Schism, the failure of Tradition to maintain unity of the Church. Additionally, we haven’t aboandoned Tradition. We simply hold it accountable to scripture.

Thank you Jon. You know I enjoy the charitable and stimulating discussion as well.

Indeed.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Trebor135;9683916]To clarify, I didn’t have the doctrine of apostolic succession in mind. Rather, I was pointing out that–unlike the Chalcedonian Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and Catholic Churches–the Lutheran communion does not consider itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is genetically and historically the very same visible society founded by Christ.

I would say that we do, actually. We don’t claim to be exclusively so, however. We confess the creeds, agree with the early councils and creeds, express our worship in a way quite similar to the Catholic Mass. We in every way consider ourselves in the One Holy Catholic and APostolic Church.

How can the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be fully accepted when it speaks explicitly of one single, visible Church, yet Lutheranism holds that Latins, Maronites, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Russians, and Ethiopians may all belong to the true, invisible Church at the same time?

The confessions speak of the Church (singular) as the congregation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Where the word is preached and the sacraments administered is quite visible. The Communion of Saints, the Church Militant, and the Church Triumphant are not visible to the naked eye, but they are visible in word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In light of his posts elsewhere on CAF, without East-West reunion Jon is much more likely to cross the Bosphorus. (At least I’m not the only one who struggles with Vatican I… )

It is the one singular issue for me, but it is also an issue for me regarding crossing the Bosphorus: what if Rome’s understanding of Nicea canon 6 is correct?

On other issues, however, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and a few other western ideas, you are probably right that I tend to lean east - not unusually for Lutherans.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
=paul c;9683107]Well, I don’t know which non-Protestants you speak of, but you don’t decide what is Catholic Tradition but the views of those in dissent. Catholic Tradition is defined by the Church hierarchy and can be traced back readily though the Early Church Fathers right to the Apostles.After all, one of the earliest works of a church Father, the letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians is demonstrating Papal primacy during the first century

Okay. well my position stands. You can’t judge what is Catholic Tradition from those that are in schism.

Quote:
Local councils aren’t binding on the entire church but Papal proclamations are. As for the Orthodox, I can’t speak for them. The fact that there are disputes about the canon certainly detracts from the argument that they are the sole source of revelation. After all, how can they be when you need another source to define what scripture is real?

Jesus gave the Pope this power. Councils get their power from the Popes that call them not the other way around. And you ignored my point that sola scriptura can not be a valid concept without the canon being stable and that requires authority higher than the scriptures themselves.

Quote:
yes, that was exactly my point. The reason that the Protestant reformers introduced the concept of sola scriptura was to support their schism. After all, if you abandon Catholic Tradition, your only link to Christ is the scripture, which can be manipulated to say anything you want by defining your own interpretation. In fact, Charles Manson used Revelation to justify Helter Skelter. And that is the danger of Sola Scriptura. Not to equate Luther to Manson, just showing how the concept can be taken to extremes

It wasn’t Tradition that broke the unity of the church, it was the reformers who substituted their own traditions for the ones that the Church holds from the Apostles. And lets be frank, You don’t hold Tradition accountable to scripture, you use Tradition to interpret scripture and hence, Tradition is primary. This is why Catholics and Lutherans can read exactly the same scripture passage and come away with opposing viewpoints. If scripture was really the base, then this couldn’t happen.

And consider this. The basis of Catholic Tradition is the Apostles. The basis of Lutheran Tradition is Luther and the Augsberg confessions. There is a wide gulf in credibility between the two.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
=Trebor135;9683916]To clarify, I didn’t have the doctrine of apostolic succession in mind. Rather, I was pointing out that–unlike the Chalcedonian Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and Catholic Churches–the Lutheran communion does not consider itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is genetically and historically the very same visible society founded by Christ.

Except that you are in schism from the One Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church by your own choice. It is undeniable that Luther severed ties with the Catholic Church and created his own church and traditions. Don’t you think its inconsistent to quit an organization and then claim you are still part of it.

Quote:
How can the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be fully accepted when it speaks explicitly of one single, visible Church, yet Lutheranism holds that Latins, Maronites, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Russians, and Ethiopians may all belong to the true, invisible Church at the same time?

Of what value are the confessions to Lutherans, let alone Non-Lutherans? They are not scripture. and this definition of church is not scriptural. By referencing them, aren’t you disproving the notion of sola scriptura? What am I missing?

The confessions speak of the Church (singular) as the congregation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Where the word is preached and the sacraments administered is quite visible. The Communion of Saints, the Church Militant, and the Church Triumphant are not visible to the naked eye, but they are visible in word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;9686857]Okay. well my position stands. You can’t judge what is Catholic Tradition from those that are in schism.

Who is is schism from whom?

Jesus gave the Pope this power. Councils get their power from the Popes that call them not the other way around. And you ignored my point that sola scriptura can not be a valid concept without the canon being stable and that requires authority higher than the scriptures themselves.

That is, of course, the Catholic position. I would contend it wasn’t the position of the undivided Church.

It wasn’t Tradition that broke the unity of the church, it was the reformers who substituted their own traditions for the ones that the Church holds from the Apostles. And lets be frank, You don’t hold Tradition accountable to scripture, you use Tradition to interpret scripture and hence, Tradition is primary. This is why Catholics and Lutherans can read exactly the same scripture passage and come away with opposing viewpoints. If scripture was really the base, then this couldn’t happen.

Not very many of those situations, other than the one I mentioned above.

And consider this. The basis of Catholic Tradition is the Apostles. The basis of Lutheran Tradition is Luther and the Augsberg confessions. There is a wide gulf in credibility between the two.

We would say it is scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;9686921]Except that you are in schism from the One Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church by your own choice. It is undeniable that Luther severed ties with the Catholic Church and created his own church and traditions. Don’t you think its inconsistent to quit an organization and then claim you are still part of it.

For the sake of discussion, is excommunication permanant condition? To my knowledge, no. Therefore, our division is clearly temporary, or at least temporal. There is only one Church.

Of what value are the confessions to Lutherans, let alone Non-Lutherans? They are not scripture. and this definition of church is not scriptural. By referencing them, aren’t you disproving the notion of sola scriptura? What am I missing?

Not at all. Sola scriptura doesn’t in any way exclude Tradition. For a Lutheran to quote Tradition is perfectly consistent with sola scriptura.
It isn’t what you’re missing, Paul. Its what has been pawned off as SS by AMerican evangelicals and others that you are exposed to.

Jon

 

[Trebor135]

I would say that we do, actually.

See my next paragraph.

We don’t claim to be exclusively so, however.

That’s the difference between the Lutheran communion and the pre-Great Schism Church.

We confess the creeds, agree with the early councils and creeds,

Both things to be commended.

express our worship in a way quite similar to the Catholic Mass.

The Lutheran liturgy is not a sacrifice, though.

We in every way consider ourselves in the One Holy Catholic and APostolic Church.

Well, the Orthodox view is that all Christians outside its boundaries are thereby outside the Church… Let us avoid that can of worms.

The confessions speak of the Church (singular) as the congregation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Where the word is preached and the sacraments administered is quite visible. The Communion of Saints, the Church Militant, and the Church Triumphant are not visible to the naked eye, but they are visible in word and sacrament.

In Lutheran terms, what you say makes sense. But the pre-Great Schism Church did not hold to an Anglican-style “branch theory” of ecclesiology.

 

[Trebor135]

Okay. well my position stands. You can’t judge what is Catholic Tradition from those that are in schism.

Catholic Tradition is supposed to be the same as Orthodox Tradition, however: the two communions both trace themselves from the same early Christian centuries.

Jesus gave the Pope this power.

Let’s leave the discussion of papal infallibility to the relevant thread (where I’m glad to see you’ve dropped in already).

Councils get their power from the Popes that call them not the other way around.

If I’m not mistaken, The emperors called all seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[paul_c]

Catholic Tradition is supposed to be the same as Orthodox Tradition, however: the two communions both trace themselves from the same early Christian centuries.

Well clearly they are not. The orthodox went into schism in 1054, the Protestants in 1517.

If I’m not mistaken, The emperors called all seven Ecumenical Councils.

The Catholic encyclopedia identifies papal involvement and jurisdiction in all 21 councils:
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

 

[Trebor135]

Well clearly they are not.

Well, if one wishes to be as precise as possible: Catholicism has inherited most of its doctrines from Sacred Tradition, with a few innovations added after the Great Schism.

The orthodox went into schism in 1054,

The historical circumstances are more complex than is commonly thought. East and West were drifting apart for a couple centuries, and the tragic breakup was not finalized until a few more had gone by.

the Protestants in 1517.

And ever since.

The Catholic encyclopedia identifies papal involvement and jurisdiction in all 21 councils:
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is… a Catholic source. So, if a pope takes part or sends legates, of course it will offer the interpretation that he was running the show. The article still doesn’t claim that the bishop of Rome himself called or oversaw any of the ecumenical councils. It does, however, make one grave omission of fact.

VI. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Years: 680-681
Summary: The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

What about Pope Honorius?!

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Well clearly they are not.

I would say this differently. I would say that All Catholic doctrines are part of its Tradition and that what you call innovations are simply clarifications of eternal truths required when new questions or situations arise.

Quote:
The orthodox went into schism in 1054,

Yes, it certainly is more complex than a simple break in 1054. There was a heavy dose of imperial politics involved as well as personality issues. And keep in mind, that 30% of the church broke away creating the Orthodox churches and then 30% of those that broke away, returned to communion with the Catholic church, and are now the 21 Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church so there wasn’t even a consistent view in the East. Frankly, the doctrinal issues seem to be largely semantics between the orthodox and Catholics so hopefully we will unify sooner rather than later,

Quote:
the Protestants in 1517.

But there is progress on this point under Pope Benedict. Many Anglicans are returning to Catholicism.

Quote:
The Catholic encyclopedia identifies papal involvement and jurisdiction in all 21 councils:
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

First of all, when you are talking about Catholic councils, the most appropriate source to document them is of course Catholic sources. Secondly, the Popes must approve the results of the councils, otherwise they are not valid.

It does, however, make one grave omission of fact.

VI. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Years: 680-681
Summary: The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

What about Pope Honorius?!

What about Pope Honorius?

 

[Trebor135]

I would say this differently. I would say that All Catholic doctrines are part of its Tradition and that what you call innovations are simply clarifications of eternal truths required when new questions or situations arise.

Since this isn’t another of the myriad East-West squabbling threads, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, it certainly is more complex than a simple break in 1054. There was a heavy dose of imperial politics involved as well as personality issues. And keep in mind, that 30% of the church broke away creating the Orthodox churches and then 30% of those that broke away, returned to communion with the Catholic church, and are now the 21 Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church so there wasn’t even a consistent view in the East.

As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox came into communion with Rome for political reasons more so than theological. I’d have to look into the history in greater detail to be more specific, though.

Frankly, the doctrinal issues seem to be largely semantics between the orthodox and Catholics so hopefully we will unify sooner rather than later,

Some of the differences are semantic, but others are substantial–see, e.g., papal infallibility.

But there is progress on this point under Pope Benedict. Many Anglicans are returning to Catholicism.

Which isn’t such a bad thing. But the number of Protestant denominations is still expanding without any hope of a slowdown. We can thank solo scriptura–a mutant form of sola scriptura. (I have to make this post related to the OP somehow!)

First of all, when you are talking about Catholic councils, the most appropriate source to document them is of course Catholic sources.

By the Catholic reading of history, the Orthodox Church (with, e.g., apostolic succession) has just as good a claim to those great assemblies of bishops, so an “Orthodox Encyclopedia” ought to be a valid source too.

Secondly, the Popes must approve the results of the councils, otherwise they are not valid.

If you have more information on this point, feel free to send me a PM.

What about Pope Honorius?

An ecumenical council anathematized a (deceased) pope. That’s pretty significant.

 

[JonNC]

=Trebor135;9687360]
That’s the difference between the Lutheran communion and the pre-Great Schism Church.

With respect to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, its kind of a difference between us and both of them, since they both claim to be exclusively the OHCAC. It seems if the Schism is healed, this issue is resolved, at least for me and I would guess many others.

Both things to be commended.

Thank you,

The Lutheran liturgy is not a sacrifice, though.

Not in the Catholic sense. You could better speak of the Orthodox sense. Keep in mind it was a response to what the Lutheran Reformers saw as abuses of the Mass.

Well, the Orthodox view is that all Christians outside its boundaries are thereby outside the Church… Let us avoid that can of worms.

OK,

In Lutheran terms, what you say makes sense. But the pre-Great Schism Church did not hold to an Anglican-style “branch theory” of ecclesiology.

And I don’t think I would consider it a branch theory either. One Church, sadly in schism and division, not in branches.

Jon