EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When you say the God-man Christ used scripture 50 times as a "norm", what do you mean ?

Obviously, by this point in the thread (and in our discussions on this point), you know what a rule/canon/norma norman is. We've been over this countless times, I've used just about all the illustrations I can think of. But I think you understand the concept.

When Jesus quoted Scripture, He did so NOT to say, "isn't it nice this scroll says this?" No, he quoted it as a norm, he held up what he was saying to the bright light of Scripture to say, "Scripture confirms this." He did that some 50 times. Now, He was hardly alone.

Now, IN AN AGE BEFORE NEW COVENANT SCRIPTURES EXISTED, He (as God!!!!!!!) said some additional things, even things where He did NOT hold them up to Scripture (a point Mormons make constantly but rarely Catholics), but He used no other norm - not the Tradition of any denomination (not mine, not yours, not the LDS), He didn't use the design of my church building or yours, He didn't so use the Divine Service II, setting II of the LCMS, He didn't use ANY of the things I was told earlier are the rule/canon/norma normans in the EO (or any used in the RCC or LDS). The only one He used was Scripture - although, again for my Mormon friends, I admit He didn't always use any norm at all. But then we probably would be good to permit GOD to not be subject to GOD'S rule? Even though He usually did so submit. All this, of course, is moot today since (except for the Mormons), no one is suggesting additional biblical books. It's silly (I think) to argue that the Scriptures are moot as a rule because MAYBE, 12000 years from now, God will add a book that contradicts what He has told us so far. Kinda like telling a policeman that the 45 MPH sign doesn't apply to YOU because who is to say that in the year 2146, the speed limit might be changed?


I hope that helps.


Pax


.

 

[Thekla]

Obviously, by this point in the thread (and in our discussions on this point), you know what a rule/canon/norma norman is. We've been over this countless times, I've used just about all the illustrations I can think of. But I think you understand the concept.

When Jesus quoted Scripture, He did so NOT to say, "isn't it nice this scroll says this?" No, he quoted it as a norm, he held up what he was saying to the bright light of Scripture to say, "Scripture confirms this." He did that some 50 times. Now, He was hardly alone.

Now, IN AN AGE BEFORE NEW COVENANT SCRIPTURES EXISTED, He (as God!!!!!!!) said some additional things, even things where He did NOT hold them up to Scripture (a point Mormons make constantly but rarely Catholics), but He used no other norm - not the Tradition of any denomination (not mine, not yours, not the LDS), He didn't use the design of my church building or yours, He didn't so use the Divine Service II, setting II of the LCMS, He didn't use ANY of the things I was told earlier are the rule/canon/norma normans in the EO (or any used in the RCC or LDS). The only one He used was Scripture - although, again for my Mormon friends, I admit He didn't always use any norm at all. But then we probably would be good to permit GOD to not be subject to GOD'S rule? Even though He usually did so submit.

So in this you mean Christ did not consider Himself the norm, but the description expressed in human language.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So in this you mean Christ did not consider Himself the norm, but the description expressed in human language.

Yes, IN A SENSE, God is the rule in all things. But, if I were you, if the policeman stops you for going 60 in a 45 MPH zone, I wouldn't suggest telling him that the sign if moot because GOD is the speed limit for you. But theologically, I get your point.

Before the NT (which began some 10 years after Easter and was completed within 70 years), IF WE LIVED during the time of Jesus, Scripture was not complete - more was being added. So, yes, Jesus - on occasion - said things which He did not norm (by Scripture or by anything so used by the RCC or LDS or, it seems EO as the norm). He's GOD, let's not forget. But all that seems moot now. Rather like saying what's the speed limit on a road only now being built. But we don't live in 29 AD, do we? And again, what was the ONLY NORMA NORMANS Jesus ever used? Yup. Scripture. Some 50 times. He never said "The Bishop of Rome is infallible/unaccountable and whatever he says is the rule/canon/norma normans for Christian teachings." And He never exampled that (praxis is typically exampled rather than taught). The ONLY normative rule He used was Scripture. Sola Scriptura. The Rule of Scripture. It's really exclusively a MORMON point because they want to stress that this is EXACTLY like 29 AD because God has more Scriptures for us. I don't think the EO is fighting to add some new books to the NT - one's just suddenly revealed. I think we would agree that Scripture is finished, so it's a moot point between you and me.



.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, IN A SENSE, God is the rule in all things. But, if I were you, if the policeman stops you for going 60 in a 45 MPH zone, I wouldn't suggest telling him that the sign if moot because GOD is the speed limit for you. But theologically, I get your point.

Before the NT (which began some 10 years after Easter and was completed within 70 years), IF WE LIVED during the time of Jesus, Scripture was not complete - more was being added. So, yes, Jesus - on occasion - said things which He did not norm (by Scripture or by anything so used by the RCC or LDS or, it seems EO as the norm). He's GOD, let's not forget. But all that seems moot now. Rather like saying what's the speed limit on a road only now being built. But we don't live in 29 AD, do we? And again, what was the ONLY NORMA NORMANS Jesus ever used? Yup. Scripture. Some 50 times. He never said "The Bishop of Rome is infallible/unaccountable and whatever he says is the rule/canon/norma normans for Christian teachings." And He never exampled that (praxis is typically exampled rather than taught). The ONLY normative rule He used was Scripture. Sola Scriptura. The Rule of Scripture.



.

No, I do not see that scripture was the only norm He used. And the norms of scripture were predated in created time by the events and teachings that the scripture describes.

Further, it seems that in this model (above) created time is the measure.
This seems to hold the created as the norm for the uncreated - which seems to posit that created time has greater authority than uncreated. Christians sojourn in created time. But 29 Ad is no different from now in the sense of uncreated time - God's time, where God is, our true home.

Finally, I do not understand how the sola scripturists determine that the NT norm - using both Masoretic but more often LXX citations - should not be the norm for OT use presently.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, I do not see that scripture was the only norm He used.

Fair enough. Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

An earlier EO poster listed these as also part of the canon of the EO.

Finally, I do not understand how the sola scripturists determine that the NT norm - using both Masoretic but more often LXX citations - should not be the norm for OT use presently.

Interesting, but moot.

1. Sola Scriptura is a PRAXIS, not a teaching. Thus it doesn't DECLARE what is and is not Scripture. The same is true in the Rule of Law in civil societies, the PRAXIS doesn't define what the law is - indeed, it's a bit different in the UK than it is in the USA but the praxis of using the law as the rule/canon/norma normans is the same.

2. Except for the Mormons and a few much smaller group, we pretty much agree on what is and is not Christian Scripture. I realize that one (out of a supposed 50,000) has a UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books, another another unique set of DEUTERO books, and a third yet another unique set. With a couple of fuzzy cases, the other 49,997 either take no official position on these (but don't officially embrace them) or don't embrace them. But, friend, I was active in the RCC for several years. they are one of those 3 denominations that official embraces their own unique set of them. Frankly, it makes no difference to the praxis and makes no difference in any arbitration. Luther quoted from these books FAR more than Catholics do today, and in all my studies in Catholicism, in all my constant questioning (and you know how I can do that, lol), NEVER was ANYTHING in ANY of these books even brought up. Well, except for one verse in one of them that SUPPOSEDLY said something about purgatory but actually it had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Friend, when I have discussions with Catholics, I WELCOME them including thier unique set of DEUTERO books - makes no difference and hey, let's keep the discussions to one issue at a time! Besides, I don't EXCLUDE those books (Luther included them in his translations, Lutherans used them until some 100 years ago with some regularity). But again, the PRAXIS is to use Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. The PRAXIS doesn't define exactly WHAT that is anymore than the Praxis of the Rule of Law in the Praxis spells out every law in every situation in every nation and locale. The PRAXIS is the the Law is the canon, that's what the Rule of Law is. In the same way, the PRAXIS of the Rule of Scripture says that Scripture is the Rule. IF you want to argue that the unique set of EO books applies, you'd get no arguement from me VIA A VIS the Praxis. Now, if you want to say that the design of your church building is the Rule - now we disagree, lol.



.

 

[Yeznik]

[FONT=&quot]

1. Who said He did?

2. Do you believe the Scriptures are in no sense about Christ?

3. Why is it not sufficient for you that the Holy Spirit wrote a book, why must JESUS have written it during His earthly ministry for it to be a sound canon? Lost me, brother....

4. Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times. My question was, how often did He so use (or even MENTION) all the various things I was told are the norma normans in the EO?

[/FONT]
1. I don’t know if this is a rhetorical question.

2. I do believe that the Scriptures are about Jesus, but the Scriptures would be not true if there was no empty tomb and Resurrection. Unfortunately, that attitude displayed within Protestantism is that even the Bible is above God.

3. If the Holy Spirit wrote A (singular) book then that would mean that God is and can be contained in an object, which from an Orthodox perspective this is idolatry, and that which can be contained is not God. Secondly, if a person were to read Scripture and not believe in God, that would mean that God is not all powerful. What makes Scripture Holy is the Spirit which opens the eyes, the ears and the heart of man not a book or words on a page. The Spirit awakens the spiritual intellect so it can perceive the Truth. The Holy Spirit also used the Saints, the Fathers and the Martyrs of the Church to preach the Gospel. Therefore the words written by the Saints are also the writings of the Holy Spirit but held in a secondary position next to the bible, which is the primary written revelation of God.

4. It looks like you are making the Argument for Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), but the same line of reasoning can also state that Jesus never referred to Chinese people in the bible so where did they come from.

 

[buzuxi02]

CJ as i can see you are a surface thinker, you search the web for isolated verses (which you came up with ten or so isolated passages) of the ancient Fathers of the Church to persuade the less knowledgeable that in some way the early christians believed in sola scripture!

Are you really trying to use Basil of Caesaria to prove sola scripture?????!!!!!!!!! Basil of Caesaria battled against heretics, some of whom used scriptures and others who did not. In fact he is one father who adamantly used Apostolic Tradition against those who used scripture in a twisted way. Basil of Caesaria coined the term "unwritten tradition" to make a distinction between the bible which he knew as 'written tradition".

Lets take a look at what Basil of Caesaria really said:

"Of the beliefs and practises whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the church, some we possess derived from written teaching, others we have recieved, delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force... For instance, to take the first and most general example, who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of the Lord Jesus. What writing has taught us to turn to the east for prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writings the words of invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not content, as is well known with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism, and the oil of chrism, and besides this the catecumen who is bbeing baptised. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? By what written word is the annointing of oil itself taught? And where comes the custom of baptising in triple immersion?...

What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to everyone? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers, the first courts he conceded to the purer, the levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity... Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Ekklesia from the beginning thus guarded the aweful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruted abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practises, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not be neglected and condemned by the multitiude through familiarity.

Dogma and Kerugma are two distinct things, the former is observed in silence, the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in scripture, which makes the meaning of dogmas difficult to be unbderstood for the very advantage of the reader; thus we all look to the East at our prayers but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, paradise, which God plantedin Eden in the east. We pray standing on the first day of the week, but we do know all know the reason. On the day of ressurection we remind ourselves of the grace given to us bby stanbding in prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to seek those things which are above, but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore , though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but One...."

Now CJ concerning Christ. No Christ did not use OT scripture as the norm rule. He relates to us the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. Where is this concept of Hades found in the OT?
This is more of a greek concept and was completely foreign to judaism of the first century. From here we learn of the immortality of the soul and its awareness in the afterlife. Jehovahs witness on the other hand who apply sola scripture reject this on grounds that the OT never teaches such things! Hades is simply the OT sheol in all ways, both hades and sheol are fancy words for cemetary plot, the soul sleeps and is unconcious until the second coming. The former is a major teaching of christianity yet foreign in the OT. The latter is a heresy based on sola scripture by those who promote soul sleep.

Also when Christ prophesied of his death the jews were perplexed based on oraljewish tradition. The jewish tradition taught that the messiah remains forever. What is the importance of this tradition to christian theology? It means that Christ was sinless and was not subject to the penalty of death due to Adam's transgression. Whats not recorded in scripture is how was he able to die. But Holy Tradition gives us the answer. That he VOLUNTARILY (free will) went to the cross only being able to die in a violent death.

Then theres plenty of oral jewish traditions recorded in the NT not found in the ot, such as the prophecy of Enoch in Jude 14-15. Or the oral prophecy of Matt 2.23 whose infancy narrative deciphers between what was written by the prophets and what was spoken by the prophets.

Now CJ that i have exposed you as a fraud attempting to isolate and use verses out of the early church Fathers out of context (and i have plenty more to expose you but ill let you off easy this time ).

 

[Thekla]

Fair enough. Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

An earlier EO poster listed these as also part of the canon of the EO.

I thought we were discussing sola scriptura

Interesting, but moot.

1. Sola Scriptura is a PRAXIS, not a teaching. Thus it doesn't DECLARE what is and is not Scripture. The same is true in the Rule of Law in civil societies, the PRAXIS doesn't define what the law is - indeed, it's a bit different in the UK than it is in the USA but the praxis of using the law as the rule/canon/norma normans is the same.

If scripture is the norm, how can scripture not norm what is scripture; does this mean that things other than scripture can be scripture ?

Wouldn't the praxis of using scripture to norm require one to use the norm of what is exampled in scripture ? (both Masoretic and LXX).

2. Except for the Mormons and a few much smaller group, we pretty much agree on what is and is not Christian Scripture. I realize that one (out of a supposed 50,000) has a UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books, another another unique set of DEUTERO books, and a third yet another unique set. With a couple of fuzzy cases, the other 49,997 either take no official position on these (but don't officially embrace them) or don't embrace them.

The Masoretic and LXX vary from each other in the verses quoted in the NT.

But, friend, I was active in the RCC for several years. they are one of those 3 denominations that official embraces their own unique set of them. Frankly, it makes no difference to the praxis and makes no difference in any arbitration. Luther quoted from these books FAR more than Catholics do today, and in all my studies in Catholicism, in all my constant questioning (and you know how I can do that, lol), NEVER was ANYTHING in ANY of these books even brought up. Well, except for one verse in one of them that SUPPOSEDLY said something about purgatory but actually it had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Friend, when I have discussions with Catholics, I WELCOME them including thier unique set of DEUTERO books - makes no difference and hey, let's keep the discussions to one issue at a time! Besides, I don't EXCLUDE those books (Luther included them in his translations, Lutherans used them until some 100 years ago with some regularity). But again, the PRAXIS is to use Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.

I think you see the use of scripture perhaps through sola scriptura eyes -- as perhaps an apologetic tool.

The PRAXIS doesn't define exactly WHAT that is anymore than the Praxis of the Rule of Law in the Praxis spells out every law in every situation in every nation and locale. The PRAXIS is the the Law is the canon, that's what the Rule of Law is. In the same way, the PRAXIS of the Rule of Scripture says that Scripture is the Rule. IF you want to argue that the unique set of EO books applies, you'd get no arguement from me VIA A VIS the Praxis. Now, if you want to say that the design of your church building is the Rule - now we disagree, lol.

As before, there are differences in the OT verses used as the canon -- so what is the praxis for norming for the use of the Masoretic alone as the OT text when this is clearly not the norm used by scripture ?

 

[Thekla]

Yes, IN A SENSE, God is the rule in all things.

.

Sorry - this statement distresses me.

How can the origin the Creator, our God be the norm only "in a sense" ?

 

[jckstraw72]

when Christ quoted the OT what was authoritative was the correct understanding of Scripture ie. the truth, not simply the words of Scripture.

 

[lionroar0]

Seem to me that what CJ is saying is that the Scriptures is the rule and that God is the rule in a sense, in all things, because He is interpreting the rule (Scripture).

 

[sunlover1]

CJ as i can see you are a surface thinker,

you search the web for isolated verses (which you came up with ten or so isolated passages) of the ancient Fathers of the Church to persuade the less knowledgeable that in some way the early christians believed in sola scripture!

The early Christians DID believe in Sola Scripture if you mean searching the
Scripture to make sure these things that Paul told them be true...

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Now CJ concerning Christ. No Christ did not use OT scripture as the norm rule. He relates to us the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. Where is this concept of Hades found in the OT?

Article including OT scriptures referring to both.

However, Jesus (God) certainly did introduce new ideas in the NT...
which doesnt undermine the fact that He so boldly used such phrases
as "It Is Written" ... as if to mean that if something was "written" (Word
of God) then case closed.

So Jesus (God) seemed to refer to Scriptural authority

 

[sunlover1]

Seem to me that what CJ is saying is that the Scriptures is the rule and that God is the rule in a sense, in all things, because He is interpreting the rule (Scripture).

That's very gracious of you Lion!
Blessed to see ya
Hope all is well, still working that night shift?

Dunno about the "interpreting" part, but seems that yes,, CJ believes that
Scripture is the plumbline and of course it's God's Scriptures , God being
the author, it's His Word and is powerful!! (I added the last part )

See you soon,
SL

 

[Thekla]

The early Christians DID believe in Sola Scripture if you mean searching the
Scripture to make sure these things that Paul told them be true...

Hi Sunlover

Perhaps the Bereans took their cue from Thomas

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Be wary of the "in that" translation, though ... according to BlueLetterBible, its the only occurrence in the NT where "ostis" is translated with an added preposition (changes the sense of the passage)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Article including OT scriptures referring to both.

However, Jesus (God) certainly did introduce new ideas in the NT...
which doesnt undermine the fact that He so boldly used such phrases
as "It Is Written" ... as if to mean that if something was "written" (Word
of God) then case closed.

So Jesus (God) seemed to refer to Scriptural authority

But certainly not exclusively; and anything that has authority gets its authority from God.
In fact, He corrects misinterpreted scripture by referencing scripture ...

 

[Blackknight]

There are some great articles on the GOA's web site if you want to learn more about the Orthodox position on things.

Because the Bible took its literal form in the Christian community, which kept it intact, this community - the Church - was and is the treasurer and interpreter of the Revealed Truths of Christ. This Revealed Truth, taught orally by Christ and His Apostles, is the Sacred Tradition, a part of which later became the written New Testament. Therefore, when the Christian reads the Bible, he must read it against the background of this Sacred Tradition at large.

The Bible: Its Original Languages and English Translations — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

It is sacred tradition, NOT sola scriptura that is our rule. But please, continue telling us what we believe.

 

[sunlover1]

Seem to me that what CJ is saying is that the Scriptures is the rule and that God is the rule in a sense, in all things, because He is interpreting the rule (Scripture).

Hi Sunlover

Perhaps the Bereans took their cue from Thomas

lol... you know what they say.

Missed you Thekla! We both seem to be absent lately?

Be wary of the "in that" translation, though ... according to BlueLetterBible, its the only occurrence in the NT where "ostis" is translated with an added preposition (changes the sense of the passage)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon



But certainly not exclusively; and anything that has authority gets its authority from God.

amen!

All Glory to the most High God, our Lord and Father!..

In fact, He corrects misinterpreted scripture by referencing scripture ...

Amen...
Not sure I know which you're referring to but gotta love whatever He says

See you soon.. perhaps.
love, SL

 

[Thekla]

Seem to me that what CJ is saying is that the Scriptures is the rule and that God is the rule in a sense, in all things, because He is interpreting the rule (Scripture).

I may misunderstand, but God is the source of the "rule" which is received by humans and rendered in human language. Can human language fully express what is received in the spiritual heart ?

At any rate, can it be said that God is the measure only "in a sense" and the rule is the 'more actual' rule ?

Christ will come to judge with righteousness (Psalms). Is the measure/judgement a judicial/legal or an ontological measure ? If the former (judicial/attribute), then I can see how the scripture would be a more 'actual' rule than the "in a sense rule" of God. Which seems to make the rule greater than the Ruler and Creator of all.

But if ontological, the rule cannot be greater than the Ruler.

EDIT: how can He who "is" the rule interpret the rule He gives -- would this mean He interprets Himself ?

Does Christ interpret Himself or reveal Himself ?

 

[katholikos]

Fair enough. Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO.........

This is a funny question coming from a Lutheran. I have seen a Lutheran booklet used for Sunday services, and it is almost the same as a Catholic Mass. So before you go giving the EO's the third degree, maybe you could tell us all why you follow the Catholic Mass so closely?

 

[lionroar0]

I may misunderstand, but God is the source of the "rule" which is received by humans and rendered in human language. Can human language fully express what is received in the spiritual heart ?

At any rate, can it be said that God is the measure only "in a sense" and the rule is the 'more actual' rule ?

Christ will come to judge with righteousness (Psalms). Is the measure/judgement a judicial/legal or an ontological measure ? If the former (judicial/attribute), then I can see how the scripture would be a more 'actual' rule than the "in a sense rule" of God. Which seems to make the rule greater than the Ruler and Creator of all.

But if ontological, the rule cannot be greater than the Ruler.
EDIT: how can He who "is" the rule interpret the rule He gives -- would this mean He interprets Himself ?

Does Christ interpret Himself or reveal Himself ?

Just saying that's what looks like to me. Don't really know whether I'm correct or not. Till he chimes in.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is a funny question coming from a Lutheran. I have seen a Lutheran booklet used for Sunday services, and it is almost the same as a Catholic Mass. So before you go giving the EO's the third degree, maybe you could tell us all why you follow the Catholic Mass so closely?

1. Who is giving ANYONE "the third degree" for anything? Certainly not me.

2. Yes, I called the Orthodox liturgy, "blessed" and "a blessing". But, the issue of this thread is NOT whether such is wonderful, pious, blessed and a blessing. The ONLY issue I addressed was it's role as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of teachings (including those of the EO). What you know I asked is NOT is the liturgy wonderful, it specifically was in response to the statement that the EO norma normans is OLDER than Scripture. I just asked for examples (in Scripture or perhaps outside of Scrpture) where the glorious liturgy of the EO is used as the norma normans. So far, none has been given.

3. BTW, I LOVE the Catholic Mass. Even as a 12 year old (when I first began to worship with Catholics), I was strongly drawn to Catholic worship, spirituality and piety. It pleases me that my Lutheran church continues much the same. I am passionately liturgical and sacramental - as are most Lutherans. But Sola Scriptura obviously does not embrace the Lutheran Divine Service as the norman normans for anything - much less for itself. I was told the EO does embrace its own worship service as rule/canon/norma normans (if such is wrong, there has been many pages for an EO to correct their brother on this, none has, so I'm progressing with the acceptance that such is - along with the rather long list of other things I was told is their norma normans).




.