Truths for a fair sola scriptura discussion with Catholics

[Fr_of_Jazz]

(1) The preexisting view of the CC (and EOC) at the eve of the Reformation was: God established that His word is transmitted by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church (=STC).
The teaching of the CC was (and is) that the CC is continuous (and has always held itself to be continuous) with that of the Apostles at Pentecost and likewise the tradition it handed on. Unity and continuity are inherent in STC as understood by the CC at the time.

(2) The Reformers protested against this view claiming rather that Scripture is the sole rule of faith (=SS), and based on this, that the Church and councils have erred, and CC has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it.
Luther and Calvin explicitly offer arguments against the preexisting view, STC. That is, given that the Reformers tenants were newer than the preexisting view, they had (and did assume) the burden of proof in this matter.

(3) In arguing against STC the Reformers set the results of their interpretation of Scripture alone over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted, that is, over against the content transmitted by STC including STC itself.

(4) Any definition of the CC’s position by Protestants for purposes of discussion and evaluation must, to be fair, include the unity and continuity of STC.
So, for example, to say “the CC accepts Scripture but believes that one must add to it by tradition and its own decrees” is not defining what the CC believes. Such a definition would at least be evaluating and interpreting STC by means of SS or simply rephrasing SS.

(5) Any attempt to check for SS versus STC in the fathers and Ecumenical Councils must include their doing what the Reformers did in (3) above.
So for a father or Council merely to assert that Scripture is probative or that every conviction must be tested by Scripture would not constitute SS. SS must include them holding their interpretation of Scripture over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted. In other words, if a given father or Council really taught and practiced SS they must be doing what the Reformers did with respect to STC.

 

[Gorgias]

Nice…

“STC”, though: “Sacred Tradition of the Church”? “Sola… TC”?

 

[adf417]

incase there are any rebuttals.

Peace!

 

[tabycat]

incase there are any rebuttals.

Peace!

ditto!

 

[po18guy]

In essence, all who have departed from the Church allege in some manner, from minor to profound, that Matthew 16:18 must be re-examined and nuanced in light of recent thinking and that the Church did indeed fail in some regard. Pandora’s box was opened in the 1,500s and each and every division that has occurred since promotes a variation of the same. All allege, to some degree, what Joseph Smith later categorized as the “great apostasy.” Christ cannot apparently be taken at His word. We hear: “What Jesus really meant was that a ‘remnant’ of His Church would remain” These same also hold that we must not add to scripture.

J.R.R.Tolkien, in a letter to his son, summarized the rebellion as an attack on the mass (i.e. Eucharist) via redefining the mass either as unneeded, incorrect or invalid. This is clearly observable in the rapid post-rebellion devolution from mass to “service”, the altering and subsequent elimination of ordination and of the Priesthood, and the re-definition of the Eucharist itself. The truth of Tolkien’s analysis is clear.

In fact, when the “reformers” began courting the Eastern Orthodox Church in the hope of forming a religious/political alliance to oppose the Catholic Church, they were rebuffed, as the EOC determined that the new religion lacked the constitutive elements of a Church.

Howls of protest await.

 

[mackbrislawn]

In essence, all who have departed from the Church allege in some manner, from minor to profound, that Matthew 16:18

must be re-examined and nuanced in light of recent thinking and that the Church did indeed fail in some regard. Pandora’s box was opened in the 1,500s and each and every division that has occurred since promotes a variation of the same. All allege, to some degree, what Joseph Smith later categorized as the “great apostasy.” Christ cannot apparently be taken at His word. We hear: “What Jesus really meant was that a ‘remnant’ of His Church would remain” These same also hold that we must not add to scripture.

J.R.R.Tolkien, in a letter to his son, summarized the rebellion as an attack on the mass (i.e. Eucharist) via redefining the mass either as unneeded, incorrect or invalid. This is clearly observable in the rapid post-rebellion devolution from mass to “service”, the altering and subsequent elimination of ordination and of the Priesthood, and the re-definition of the Eucharist itself. The truth of Tolkien’s analysis is clear.

.

it seems the Reformation has ultimately devolved so even scripture is questioned. Protestantism as it goes through the centuries is a process of reduction. More and more things are realized to be simply Catholic tradition until now with modern liberals it is seen that belief in the inspiration of scripture is nothing but a Catholic tradition. So now in modernism even scripture is attacked.

 

[po18guy]

it seems the Reformation has ultimately devolved so even scripture is questioned. Protestantism as it goes through the centuries is a process of reduction. More and more things are realized to be simply Catholic tradition until now with modern liberals it is seen that belief in the inspiration of scripture is nothing but a Catholic tradition. So now in modernism even scripture is attacked.

It is theological entropy. It is alleged, and appropriately so, that not a single reformation church exists today as it was constituted. “Thevolution”?

 

[johnnyc176]

it seems the Reformation has ultimately devolved so even scripture is questioned. Protestantism as it goes through the centuries is a process of reduction. More and more things are realized to be simply Catholic tradition until now with modern liberals it is seen that belief in the inspiration of scripture is nothing but a Catholic tradition. So now in modernism even scripture is attacked.

I posted this in another thread yesterday but it is an example for your excellent point made hear…

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/05/ho-lee-cow-2.html

 

[JonNC]

Just two comments, Fr.

=Fr of Jazz;11174231](1) The preexisting view of the CC (and EOC) at the eve of the Reformation was: God established that His word is transmitted by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church (=STC).
The teaching of the CC was (and is) that the CC is continuous (and has always held itself to be continuous) with that of the Apostles at Pentecost and likewise the tradition it handed on. Unity and continuity are inherent in STC as understood by the CC at the time.

(2) The Reformers protested against this view claiming rather that Scripture is the sole rule of faith (=SS), and based on this, that the Church and councils have erred, and CC has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it.
Luther and Calvin explicitly offer arguments against the preexisting view, STC. That is, given that the Reformers tenants were newer than the preexisting view, they had (and did assume) the burden of proof in this matter.

I would contend that, in number 2, that the cause / effect is reversed. Hence:**The Reformers protested against this view claiming rather that the Church and councils have erred and contradicted each other, has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it, and based on this, Scripture must be viewed as the sole rule of faith (=SS). **

(5) Any attempt to check for SS versus STC in the fathers and Ecumenical Councils must include their doing what the Reformers did in (3) above.
So for a father or Council merely to assert that Scripture is probative or that every conviction must be tested by Scripture would not constitute SS. SS must include them holding their interpretation of Scripture over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted. In other words, if a given father or Council really taught and practiced SS they must be doing what the Reformers did with respect to STC.

I would agree, however include that since the fathers and early councils had no knowledge of the Great Schism and the divisions that would follow as a result of the Reformation, or any of the causes, that their words cannot be used to support the STC view, either.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I would contend that, in number 2, that the cause / effect is reversed. Hence:The Reformers protested against this view claiming rather that the Church and councils have erred and contradicted each other, has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it, and based on this, Scripture must be viewed as the sole rule of faith (=SS). Jon

So, the correct response to this was to eliminate the Priesthood? This is only part of the reason why the reformers were rebuffed by the Eastern Orthodox when they sought an alliance with them. The article in the link was written in a very softball form from the Protestant perspective. Bottom line: The EOC considered the reformers to be heretics, and the reformers classed the EOC as being “too Catholic”!

No matter the corruption of the Pope. No matter the bad behavior of any Church member - altering the Church’s DNA was in no way the solution to high levels of personal corruption. And, once the cameras were trained on the reformers as they split from each other, we see that they too suffered from essentially identical defects of character. Great! Now what?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Just two comments, Fr.

I would contend that, in number 2, that the cause / effect is reversed. Hence:The Reformers protested against this view claiming rather that the Church and councils have erred and contradicted each other, has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it, and based on this, Scripture must be viewed as the sole rule of faith (=SS).

Except if you read Luther and Calvin that is not the case. The principle they used to determine “that the Church and councils have erred, and CC has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity” is their interpretation of Scripture independently of it’s context in the whole of STC at the time.

Further the councils they pick as contradictory were not accepted as Ecumenical by the CC and EOC at the time anyway. E.g., The Robber Synod which was explicitly rejected by the Council Chalcedon which like Ephesus (431 AD) expressly followed the fathers and/or tradition. The seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church affirm the orthodoxy and continuity of the preceding councils and indeed they are.

I would agree, however include that since the fathers and early councils had no knowledge of the Great Schism and the divisions that would follow as a result of the Reformation, or any of the causes, that their words cannot be used to support the STC view, either.

Jon

You’re going to have to explain how it follows that the fathers’ writings which explicitly affirm the teachings and necessity of the great Councils (those always been accepted as authentic and ecumenical), explicitly teach the existence of Tradition as a source of the Gospel, and explicitly affirm Scripture, and never put their independent interpretation of Scripture over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted, somehow are not teaching and portraying STC. Ditto for the first seven Ecumenical Councils many of which explicitly teach us to follow Scripture and/or Tradition.

 

[tdgesq]

I would contend that, in number 2, that the cause / effect is reversed. Hence:The Reformers protested against this view claiming rather that the Church and councils have erred and contradicted each other, has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it, and based on this, Scripture must be viewed as the sole rule of faith (=SS).

Hi Jon,

While this is the standard response I see from most mainline Protestants, it doesn’t explain much about the status of Ecumenical Councils prior to schism. The early undivided Church through its bishops claimed apostolic authority to teach, especially in the face of heresy (Arius, Nestorius, etc). The only argument that really works against this is that the bishops never were the successors of the apostles and never had the ability in totum to bind the consciences of Christians; a difficult position to defend from the historical record.

I would agree, however include that since the fathers and early councils had no knowledge of the Great Schism and the divisions that would follow as a result of the Reformation, or any of the causes, that their words cannot be used to support the STC view, either.

There is an argument for this post-schism - that the Church lost the ability to definitively teach doctrine - but that can’t be a claim against the early councils. Why is it that Protestants refuse to admit that the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils (at least the first three, if we count the Oriental Orthodox schism) on matters of faith and morals are binding upon all Christians?

 

[jimmy]

JonNC, is there a difference between the apostolic Church and the post apostolic church?

It is difficult to restrict doctrine to the scriptures, especially since the doctrine of the Spirit is developed through the life of the Church. Gregory the theologian spoke of the revelation of the Trinity in phases. The Father was revealed in the OT; the Son was revealed in the NT; and the Spirit has been revealed through the life of the Church. Through the guidance of the saints, the Spirit has revealed himself to be God. As Gregory said, if the Spirit isn’t God then theosis is impossible. The Church is the revelation of God.

 

[JonNC]

=Fr of Jazz;11176024]Except if you read Luther and Calvin that is not the case. The principle they used to determine “that the Church and councils have erred, and CC has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity” is their interpretation of Scripture independently of it’s context in the whole of STC at the time.

Further the councils they pick as contradictory were not accepted as Ecumenical by the CC and EOC at the time anyway. E.g., The Robber Synod which was explicitly rejected by the Council Chalcedon which like Ephesus (431 AD) expressly followed the fathers and/or tradition. The seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church affirm the orthodoxy and continuity of the preceding councils and indeed they are.

I do not know about Calvin, but I am not aware that Luther rejected any of the seven great councils. If he did, that doesn’t remain the case generally among Lutherans. The seven councils are essentially accepted.

You’re going to have to explain how it follows that the fathers’ writings which explicitly affirm the teachings and necessity of the great Councils (those always been accepted as authentic and ecumenical), explicitly teach the existence of Tradition as a source of the Gospel, and explicitly affirm Scripture, and never put their independent interpretation of Scripture over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted, somehow are not teaching and portraying STC. Ditto for the first seven Ecumenical Councils many of which explicitly teach us to follow Scripture and/or Tradition

Again, ISTM, at least by what the confessions complain about, the issues between the Lutheran Reformers and the CC are not in the early undivided Church, or those councils, but in the later western Church.
We view Tradition as a witness to the truth of scripture, but not equal to it. Again, that has to do with the contradictions, as they saw them, in the western Church leading up to the Reformation era.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tdgesq;11176093]Hi Jon,

While this is the standard response I see from most mainline Protestants, it doesn’t explain much about the status of Ecumenical Councils prior to schism. The early undivided Church through its bishops claimed apostolic authority to teach, especially in the face of heresy (Arius, Nestorius, etc). The only argument that really works against this is that the bishops never were the successors of the apostles and never had the ability in totum to bind the consciences of Christians; a difficult position to defend from the historical record.

And Lutherans do not reject this, per se. We recognize the role of the Church to teach. That’s scriptural. The truly ecumenical councils, even the 7th, which rejected iconoclasm, Lutheranism generally accepts.

There is an argument for this post-schism - that the Church lost the ability to definitively teach doctrine - but that can’t be a claim against the early councils. Why is it that Protestants refuse to admit that the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils (at least the first three, if we count the Oriental Orthodox schism) on matters of faith and morals are binding upon all Christians?

As I said, Lutherans accept the seven general councils. We won’t speak of them as “infallible”, but authoritative seems a reasonable term.

As for protestants, remember that there are different communions, with different histories and origins, within what is termed today Protestantism. I can only speak for what I understand about Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, is there a difference between the apostolic Church and the post apostolic church?

It is difficult to restrict doctrine to the scriptures, especially since the doctrine of the Spirit is developed through the life of the Church. Gregory the theologian spoke of the revelation of the Trinity in phases. The Father was revealed in the OT; the Son was revealed in the NT; and the Spirit has been revealed through the life of the Church. Through the guidance of the saints, the Spirit has revealed himself to be God. As Gregory said, if the Spirit isn’t God then theosis is impossible. The Church is the revelation of God.

I don’t have any particular trouble with this. Remember that Lutherans do not reject Tradition, but simply require it to be accountable to scripture. Yes, that is a different model than Catholicism, and probably orthodoxy use.

Jon

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I do not know about Calvin, but I am not aware that Luther rejected any of the seven great councils. If he did, that doesn’t remain the case generally among Lutherans. The seven councils are essentially accepted.

I appreciate that clarification re what Lutherans (presently) hold. However this is drifting from the main set of concerns in my OP which is the intellectual dynamic at the time: (a) what was the position/teaching of the Church at the time (STC); (b) what cognitive steps were taken by the Reformers regarding this position; (c) how did they attempt to meet the burden of justifying them.

Luther’s early statements at the very origin of the Reformation–The Leipzig Disputation (1519); Address to the German Nobility (1520); The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); Diet of Worms (1521)–all set the results of his interpretation of Scripture alone over against that of the existing Church and Tradition (i.e., the whole of STC) and the faith thus transmitted, and make that the basis for his protesting/dissenting set of convictions. I don’t see cause and effect working any other way in his early writings.

Calvin likewise in the Institutes, based on Scripture alone, opposes STC as understood by the CC:
Apostolic Succession - IV, 2, 2-3;
Authority of the Church - IV, 2, 2; IV, 2, 5; IV, 2, 10; IV, 8, 15;
Authority of Ecumenical Councils - IV, 8, 10;
Ecumenical Councils - must be subject to [Calvin’s interpretation of] Scripture IV, 9, 2; IV, 9, 5-6; IV, 9, 8; IV, 9, 13-14; councils have erred - IV, 9, 2; IV, 9, 8;
Tradition - IV, 8, 14.

My point at this juncture is not to evaluate the theological truth of this set of convictions, but to outline the cognitive steps he and Calvin took at the birth of the Reformation vis-à-vis the preexisting teaching of the Church at the time (STC).

I don’t see how the data adds up to anything for them but (2) in my OP.

Again, ISTM, at least by what the confessions complain about, the issues between the Lutheran Reformers and the CC are not in the early undivided Church, or those councils, but in the later western Church.
We view Tradition as a witness to the truth of scripture, but not equal to it. Again, that has to do with the contradictions, as they saw them, in the western Church leading up to the Reformation era.

Jon

As Luther and Calvin state things the reason why the early councils–or at least certain parts of them–are acceptable is that the decrees agree with their interpretation of Scripture alone, i.e., out of the context of STC. Again my main concern at present is not the veracity of this position, but rather an accurate portrayal the intellectual steps the early Reformers took.

So, back to addressing your original response, how does it follow that the fathers’ writings and Conciliar teachings, asserting what they do (as I described), are not teaching and portraying STC?

Also the teaching decrees of many of these councils explicitly affirm STC. Take Nicea I:
“Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars, and who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands. But before all this it is fitting that they give a written undertaking that they will accept and follow the decrees of the catholic church, namely that they will be in communion with those who have entered into a second marriage and with those who have lapsed in time of persecution and for whom a period [of penance] has been fixed and an occasion [for reconciliation] allotted, so as in all things to follow the decrees of the catholic and apostolic church.”
[Council of Nicea, canon 8]

The Letters of Cyril of Alexandria included in the decrees of the Council of Ephesus clearly teach and/or portray STC. Constantinople II and Nicea II likewise. The definition of Chalcedon starts with “Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess. . .”

Further if Luther and Calvin didn’t use Scripture to judge that Councils have erred, what then did they use? Reason alone? This would be curious. How can reason alone determine the number of sacraments, the veracity and/or continuity of apostolic succession, conciliar authority? All of these are theological convictions held to be rooted in revelation.

Many western Councils in the Middle Ages were directed to reform and discipline, although even these re ministry and religious life touched on doctrinal issues. The teachings of Hus and Wycliff rejected at Constance would likewise be rejected EOC. Lateran IV and Florence are major teaching councils which can only be evaluated theologically.

 

[JonNC]

I appreciate that clarification re what Lutherans (presently) hold. However this is drifting from the main set of concerns in my OP which is the intellectual dynamic at the time: (a) what was the position/teaching of the Church at the time (STC); (b) what cognitive steps were taken by the Reformers regarding this position; (c) how did they attempt to meet the burden of justifying them.

Luther’s early statements at the very origin of the Reformation–The Leipzig Disputation (1519); Address to the German Nobility (1520); The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); Diet of Worms (1521)–all set the results of his interpretation of Scripture alone over against that of the existing Church and Tradition (i.e., the whole of STC) and the faith thus transmitted, and make that the basis for his protesting/dissenting set of convictions. I don’t see cause and effect working any other way in his early writings.

Calvin likewise in the Institutes, based on Scripture alone, opposes STC as understood by the CC:
Apostolic Succession - IV, 2, 2-3;
Authority of the Church - IV, 2, 2; IV, 2, 5; IV, 2, 10; IV, 8, 15;
Authority of Ecumenical Councils - IV, 8, 10;
Ecumenical Councils - must be subject to [Calvin’s interpretation of] Scripture IV, 9, 2; IV, 9, 5-6; IV, 9, 8; IV, 9, 13-14; councils have erred - IV, 9, 2; IV, 9, 8;
Tradition - IV, 8, 14.

My point at this juncture is not to evaluate the theological truth of this set of convictions, but to outline the cognitive steps he and Calvin took at the birth of the Reformation vis-à-vis the preexisting teaching of the Church at the time (STC).

I don’t see how the data adds up to anything for them but (2) in my OP.

As Luther and Calvin state things the reason why the early councils–or at least certain parts of them–are acceptable is that the decrees agree with their interpretation of Scripture alone, i.e., out of the context of STC. Again my main concern at present is not the veracity of this position, but rather an accurate portrayal the intellectual steps the early Reformers took.

So, back to addressing your original response, how does it follow that the fathers’ writings and Conciliar teachings, asserting what they do (as I described), are not teaching and portraying STC?

Also the teaching decrees of many of these councils explicitly affirm STC. Take Nicea I:
“Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars, and who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands. But before all this it is fitting that they give a written undertaking that they will accept and follow the decrees of the catholic church, namely that they will be in communion with those who have entered into a second marriage and with those who have lapsed in time of persecution and for whom a period [of penance] has been fixed and an occasion [for reconciliation] allotted, so as in all things to follow the decrees of the catholic and apostolic church.”
[Council of Nicea, canon 8]

The Letters of Cyril of Alexandria included in the decrees of the Council of Ephesus clearly teach and/or portray STC. Constantinople II and Nicea II likewise. The definition of Chalcedon starts with “Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess. . .”

Further if Luther and Calvin didn’t use Scripture to judge that Councils have erred, what then did they use? Reason alone? This would be curious. How can reason alone determine the number of sacraments, the veracity and/or continuity of apostolic succession, conciliar authority? All of these are theological convictions held to be rooted in revelation.

Many western Councils in the Middle Ages were directed to reform and discipline, although even these re ministry and religious life touched on doctrinal issues. The teachings of Hus and Wycliff rejected at Constance would likewise be rejected EOC. Lateran IV and Florence are major teaching councils which can only be evaluated theologically.

On your question, that isn’t exactly what I said. What I said was they can’t be used to defend either position because their writings are from a time prior to the Schism and following that, the Reformation. For example, which STC do the Fathers support, that which is of Rome, or that which is of Orthodoxy? Would they, were they to have witnessed the Schism, continued to support STC? We can’t know.
OTOH, Lutherans do quote the Fathers, though again, I am not convinced that this is the best way to use their words since they wrote without knowledge of the events and issues that lead up to the Reformation.

That, simply, is my only point. We can assume they supported the use of Sacred Tradition, as they understood it in their time and place, but no more than that.

Jon

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

OK, so where are we on (2)?

On your question, that isn’t exactly what I said. What I said was they can’t be used to defend either position because their writings are from a time prior to the Schism and following that, the Reformation. For example, which STC do the Fathers support, that which is of Rome, or that which is of Orthodoxy? Would they, were they to have witnessed the Schism, continued to support STC? We can’t know.

Yeah, I do get it.

The short answer is you’re asking a free-floating “what if” question, but the context is against your supposition.

The CC and EOC support that STC which we hold in common and which is how I defined it, and which stands in stark contrast to the position of the Reformers.

The CC witnessed many schisms prior to Nicea II: Arian churches, Nestorian churches, and Monophysite churches all of which exist to this day. No doctrine was changed on this subject or any other as a result.

Revealed truths in their mind never depended on shifting circumstances however much their formulation may reflect them. Would you ask: had they known the three schisms resulting from Nicea-Chalcedon would they have changed their teaching on the nature of Christ? Of course not.

So, given the context, I would say the burden is on you to show why one should even think that the fathers and Councils would change this doctrine due to shifting cultural and religious sands when they have never do so for any other. You’re posing a “what if” question: “What if they witnessed the Schism, maybe they would not continue to support STC?” It’s like “What if aliens came down and morphed in to all our politicians? So, gee, can we really trust them? Until I find out I’m not going to get involved in politics.” In both cases the context is against the supposition. You need to show why it is reasonable to suppose that the fathers and Councils would even consider it or that changing circumstances alter the truth of a doctrine.

Further STC is taught explicitly by several of the Councils of the undivided church in the face of Eastern schismatic groups? They held STC to be no less established by God than the inspiration of Scripture and the Eucharist. The EOC held STC in opposition to Reformation ideas on the subject that came their way. Witness the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

OTOH, Lutherans do quote the Fathers, though again, I am not convinced that this is the best way to use their words since they wrote without knowledge of the events and issues that lead up to the Reformation.

That, simply, is my only point. We can assume they supported the use of Sacred Tradition, as they understood it in their time and place, but no more than that.
Jon

I would argue that it is an artifact of sola scriptura to say merely they supported the use of Sacred Tradition. The fathers and Councils taught and practiced STC united.

In the CC and EOC view, the fathers are and were at the time of the Reformation witnesses to the life and faith held by the Church; and to that extent they are witness to what God has revealed handed down to them from the Apostles. The fathers and Councils both held a formal decree of an Ecumenical Council to be infallibly true and sufficient to refute heresy.

It is an obvious truism regarding any teaching which one has formulated, including repeated statements by the fathers and Councils, that they did so as they understood it in their time and place. So did Jesus (in his human mind), the Four Evangelists, St. Paul, Nicea I, Chalcedon, Constantinople III, all of them.

 

[JonNC]

OK, so where are we on (2)?

Yeah, I do get it.

The short answer is you’re asking a free-floating “what if” question, but the context is against your supposition.

The CC and EOC support that STC which we hold in common and which is how I defined it, and which stands in stark contrast to the position of the Reformers.

The CC witnessed many schisms prior to Nicea II: Arian churches, Nestorian churches, and Monophysite churches all of which exist to this day. No doctrine was changed on this subject or any other as a result.

Revealed truths in their mind never depended on shifting circumstances however much their formulation may reflect them. Would you ask: had they known the three schisms resulting from Nicea-Chalcedon would they have changed their teaching on the nature of Christ? Of course not.

So, given the context, I would say the burden is on you to show why one should even think that the fathers and Councils would change this doctrine due to shifting cultural and religious sands when they have never do so for any other. You’re posing a “what if” question: “What if they witnessed the Schism, maybe they would not continue to support STC?” It’s like “What if aliens came down and morphed in to all our politicians? So, gee, can we really trust them? Until I find out I’m not going to get involved in politics.” In both cases the context is against the supposition. You need to show why it is reasonable to suppose that the fathers and Councils would even consider it or that changing circumstances alter the truth of a doctrine.

Further STC is taught explicitly by several of the Councils of the undivided church in the face of Eastern schismatic groups? They held STC to be no less established by God than the inspiration of Scripture and the Eucharist. The EOC held STC in opposition to Reformation ideas on the subject that came their way. Witness the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

I would argue that it is an artifact of sola scriptura to say merely they supported the use of Sacred Tradition. The fathers and Councils taught and practiced STC united.

In the CC and EOC view, the fathers are and were at the time of the Reformation witnesses to the life and faith held by the Church; and to that extent they are witness to what God has revealed handed down to them from the Apostles. The fathers and Councils both held a formal decree of an Ecumenical Council to be infallibly true and sufficient to refute heresy.

It is an obvious truism regarding any teaching which one has formulated, including repeated statements by the fathers and Councils, that they did so as they understood it in their time and place. So did Jesus (in his human mind), the Four Evangelists, St. Paul, Nicea I, Chalcedon, Constantinople III, all of them.

I would offer as evidence this: which STP would they endorse? Would it depend on whether they west western or eastern? Would it depend on whether they see Nicea as supporting or refuting papal supremacy? Without knowing that, how can we know where they would come done on other issues?

Jon