Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.

[Always in His Presence]

That’s a common misinterpretation of that passage,

Literally thousands of non Catholic theologians disagree.

Paul commended them for searching only scripture. (Sola scriptura) to determine if he was from God or not.

 

[Fervent]

It is also worth noting that the concept of Sola Scriptura taught by Martin Luther and certain other early Protestants is much less problematic than the nuda scriptura doctrine people conflate with it. Basically Luther and Cranmer taught something along the lines of “Scripture, tradition, reason” wherein Scripture was the highest and most authoritative source of doctrine. This became conflated among Puritans, Anabaptists and other Radical Reformation movements, and later among the Restorationist churches, with the doctrines of Sufficiency of Scripture and Perspicuity of Scripture, which result in an anti-traditional, anti-Patristic theology which is extremely problematic and which opens the door for various errors such as the Prosperity Gospel, the errors of the Millerites, and so on.

I would supplement your distinction by adding that the doctrine that is actually problematic that has come from the Reformation is not sola scriptura itself, but that the Bible is sui generis rather than being an outworking of apostolic tradition. Sola Scriptura was not meant as a repudiation of tradition, but Tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

Literally thousands of non Catholic theologians disagree.

And literally thousands of non-Catholic theologians agree, for example, theologians from the traditional liturgical Protestant churches and from the Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, so if you really want to go there, on a numerical level when we add the traditional Protestant denominations of Anglicanism and Lutheranism, which are the 3rd and 4th largest in the world, to the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, which are the 1st and 2nd largest, and then for good measure include the roughly 60 million Oriental Orthodox, the two million Assyrians, and about five million other liturgical Protestants including traditional Methodists, Moravians, high church Congregationalist and liturgical Calvinists and so on, we have accounted for the majority of Christians and the majority of theologians and also we no longer have the problem of an inconsistent exegesis between Acts and 2 Thessalonians, which the Nuda Scriptura interpretation of the Noble Bereans pericope encounters.

Paul commended them for searching only scripture. (Sola scriptura) to determine if he was from God or not.

The text says nothing to support that reading.

It is extremely important that we not allow our exegesis of scripture to be animated by the false dichotomy of Protestant vs. Catholic, a false dichotomy which ignores the Eastern churches that were never subject to the Roman Catholic Church and which ignores the extreme similarity between traditional liturgical Protestantism such as that of the Lutherans and Anglicans, who even have monasteries, and Roman Catholicism.

 

[The Liturgist]

I would supplement your distinction by adding that the doctrine that is actually problematic that has come from the Reformation is not sola scriptura itself, but that the Bible is sui generis rather than being an outworking of apostolic tradition. Sola Scriptura was not meant as a repudiation of tradition, but Tradition.

I partially agree, except my reading of Luther is that he intended Sola Scriptura to be a repudiation of false traditions rather than the genuine apostolic Tradition as preserved in the consensus patrum, and likewise the Anglicans and Calvinists, who actually coined the term consensus patrum. Rather, it was a repudiation of the Magisterium of the Roman Church which had, on the basis of the traditions of Scholastic theology and Papal Supremacy and other doctrinal departures from the early church, drifted away from what the Orthodox call Holy Tradition, but not the concept of the Magisterium. Rather, the Magisterial Reformers, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and St. Jan Hus (who is venerated by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia together with St. Jerome of Prague) sought to, as the name implies, reform the Magisterium so that it was in alignment with Scripture and thus the Apostolic tradition.

Unfortunately they were not entirely successful, nor was the Roman Church entirely successful in the first round of counter-Reformation at solving its problems, but progress was made. The current more refined state of theology in the liturgical churches is largely a product of ecumenical dialogue, the embrace of Eastern theology and liturgy by Protestants and Catholics, and other events such as the Second Vatican Council, which was something of a mixed bag, but did have some positives (really, the main problem was not what the Second Vatican Council wanted to do with the Roman Catholic liturgy, but rather with what Annibale Bugnini actually managed to get away with doing, which greatly exceeded his conciliar mandate.

 

[Dan Perez]

The Catholic Church teaches that, besides a place of eternal torments for the wicked and of everlasting rest for the righteous, there exists in the next life a middle state of temporary punishment, allotted for those who have died in venial sin, or who have not satisfied the justice of God for sins already forgiven. She also teaches us that, although the souls consigned to this intermediate state, commonly called purgatory, cannot help themselves, they may be aided by the suffrages of the faithful on earth. The existence of purgatory naturally implies the correlative dogma—the utility of praying for the dead—for the souls consigned to this middle state have not reached the term of their journey. They are still exiles from heaven and fit subjects for Divine clemency.

The doctrine of an intermediate state is thus succinctly asserted by the Council of Trent: “There is a Purgatory, and souls there detained, are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar.”

It is to be noted that the Council studiously abstains from specifying the nature of the expiating sufferings endured therein.

Is it not strange that this cherished doctrine should also be called in question by the levelling innovators of the sixteenth century, when we consider that it is clearly taught in the Old Testament; that it is, at least, insinuated in the New Testament; that it is unanimously proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church; that it is embodied in all the ancient liturgies of the Oriental and the Western church, and that it is a doctrine alike consonant with our reason and eminently consoling to the human heart?

And I need a verse for PURGATORY is found as I looked for it in the bible and there is no Greek word for PURAGORY , your thoughts ?

I this a TRADITION ?

dan p

 

[Fervent]

I partially agree, except my reading of Luther is that he intended Sola Scriptura to be a repudiation of false traditions rather than the genuine apostolic Tradition as preserved in the consensus patrum, and likewise the Anglicans and Calvinists, who actually coined the term consensus patrum. Rather, it was a repudiation of the Magisterium of the Roman Church which had, on the basis of the traditions of Scholastic theology and Papal Supremacy and other doctrinal departures from the early church, drifted away from what the Orthodox call Holy Tradition, but not the concept of the Magisterium. Rather, the Magisterial Reformers, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and St. Jan Hus (who is venerated by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia together with St. Jerome of Prague) sought to, as the name implies, reform the Magisterium so that it was in alignment with Scripture and thus the Apostolic tradition.

Unfortunately they were not entirely successful, nor was the Roman Church entirely successful in the first round of counter-Reformation at solving its problems, but progress was made. The current more refined state of theology in the liturgical churches is largely a product of ecumenical dialogue, the embrace of Eastern theology and liturgy by Protestants and Catholics, and other events such as the Second Vatican Council, which was something of a mixed bag, but did have some positives (really, the main problem was not what the Second Vatican Council wanted to do with the Roman Catholic liturgy, but rather with what Annibale Bugnini actually managed to get away with doing, which greatly exceeded his conciliar mandate.

If I understand you correctly, I'm in agreement. When I put the T on Tradition what I meant to imply is the belief in an infallible tradition preserved among the bishopric alone. The magisterial reformers necessarily rejected certain views of Apostolic succession, otherwise they would have no place in opposing the status quo since none of them were bishops. It was not a repudiation of the existence of a preserved oral tradition, but a recognition that oral traditions are subject to additions and subtractions and the Christian tradition is no exception and so the tradition while essentially trustworthy is imperfectly preserved. The polemics of the day and subsequent developments have resulted in hostility towards all tradition, and has gone from focusing on correcting things that are in opposition to Scripture to denouncing anything that does not find explicit expression in Scripture. Which brings us to the topic at hand, as the issue is not prayers for the dead per se but a general hostility among protestant traditions to practices that do not find explicit expression within the Scripture and are instead a part of the broader historic tradition. It's impossible for agreement to be made when the separation is so fundamental, and it would be better for ecumenical purposes to focus on what is agreed upon than to insist on fringe disagreements.

 

[The Liturgist]

If I understand you correctly, I'm in agreement. When I put the T on Tradition what I meant to imply is the belief in an infallible tradition preserved among the bishopric alone. The magisterial reformers necessarily rejected certain views of Apostolic succession, otherwise they would have no place in opposing the status quo since none of them were bishops. It was not a repudiation of the existence of a preserved oral tradition, but a recognition that oral traditions are subject to additions and subtractions and the Christian tradition is no exception and so the tradition while essentially trustworthy is imperfectly preserved. The polemics of the day and subsequent developments have resulted in hostility towards all tradition, and has gone from focusing on correcting things that are in opposition to Scripture to denouncing anything that does not find explicit expression in Scripture. Which brings us to the topic at hand, as the issue is not prayers for the dead per se but a general hostility among protestant traditions to practices that do not find explicit expression within the Scripture and are instead a part of the broader historic tradition. It's impossible for agreement to be made when the separation is so fundamental, and it would be better for ecumenical purposes to focus on what is agreed upon than to insist on fringe disagreements.

I think you did understand me correctly.

Although regarding prayers for the dead, this is a non-issue as they have become ubiquitous among Anglicans, who represent the largest Protestant denomination, and have spread elsewhere thanks to the influence of CS Lewis. They are known in Lutheranism now, indeed.

I am really only concerned with the traditional liturgical Protestant churches and also the mainline churches who still have some good parishes but are being seriously damaged by liberal postmodern theology, for example, the Moravians.

In the case of Baptist or Pentecostal or Adventist churches or the non-denominational and aliturgical megachurches, and the Word of Faith movement, the disparity is simply too great.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It is extremely important that we not allow our exegesis of scripture to be animated by the false dichotomy of Protestant vs. Catholic, a false dichotomy which ignores the Eastern churches that were never subject to the Roman Catholic Church and which ignores the extreme similarity between traditional liturgical Protestantism such as that of the Lutherans and Anglicans, who even have monasteries, and Roman Catholicism.

Proper exegeses requires a sola scriptura stance because it requires scripture only .

You cannot by definition have an exegetical stance on traditions or what some theologian states about a matter.




Perhaps you should post uniquely Roman Catholic theology in the Catholic area of the forums.

You would not get the opposing viewpoints you are here in General Theology.

Quoting Martin Luther in areas he agreed with your theology and ignoring his writings on the papacy doesn’t bolster your position.

Neither does the numerous references to tradition or extra biblical writings.

I don’t mean that as an offense. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs - so are others. With the greatest respect. Hislegacy (Joe)

 

[Fervent]

I think you did understand me correctly.

Although regarding prayers for the dead, this is a non-issue as they have become ubiquitous among Anglicans, who represent the largest Protestant denomination, and have spread elsewhere thanks to the influence of CS Lewis. They are known in Lutheranism now, indeed.

I am really only concerned with the traditional liturgical Protestant churches and also the mainline churches who still have some good parishes but are being seriously damaged by liberal postmodern theology, for example, the Moravians.

In the case of Baptist or Pentecostal or Adventist churches or the non-denominational and aliturgical megachurches, and the Word of Faith movement, the disparity is simply too great.

A wise position, though I think there may be enough common ground even with the groups mentioned, with the exception of Adventists and Word of Faith, for mutually beneficial dialogue even if agreement cannot be reached. It is simply that too often the discussion focuses on where we disagree, rather than building on agreements. I say this as someone who started out Baptist and am now in my own category because while I recognize and appreciate the value of tradition and find myself more in agreement with Orthodox theology than with baptist orthodoxy I remain in a Baptist church because highly liturgical worship remains so alien to me. Prayers for the dead to me is also a non-issue, though I do not find myself embracing the practice I find no fault with those who do especially given the historic nature.

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord says that God is “of the living” ( Matthew 22:32). In Ruth 2:20 is stated that God has not forsaken His kindness to the living & the dead”. The “dead” here means the earthly departed in light of that God is “of the living”. St. Paul tells us to pray for all in 1 Timothy 2:1-6; arguments either way here seem reasonable. I always remember an observation of an Orthodox Christian in our sub forum that the Lord prayed during the raising of Lazarus ( John 11:38-44).

Just want to state that I am not criticizing the views of other Christians on this.

 

[The Liturgist]

A wise position, though I think there may be enough common ground even with the groups mentioned, with the exception of Adventists and Word of Faith, for mutually beneficial dialogue even if agreement cannot be reached. It is simply that too often the discussion focuses on where we disagree, rather than building on agreements. I say this as someone who started out Baptist and am now in my own category because while I recognize and appreciate the value of tradition and find myself more in agreement with Orthodox theology than with baptist orthodoxy I remain in a Baptist church because highly liturgical worship remains so alien to me. Prayers for the dead to me is also a non-issue, though I do not find myself embracing the practice I find no fault with those who do especially given the historic nature.

Out of curiosity, despite finding liturgical worship alien, well, you know, some aspects of liturgical worship are so subtle you may have seen it and not realized it was liturgical. For example, do you remember Dr. James Kennedy, and how his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church services were broadcast? Because that was, strictly speaking, liturgical. Indeed most Baptist churches follow an order of worship, which is a simplified form of liturgy. And many liturgical churches permit ex temporaneous prayer.

There are also churches which thread the needle between the two while retaining beautiful worship that is also thoroughly traditional. I would cite the Morning Service at Park Street Church in Boston as a good example of this. It is technically litrugical in that it follows a fixed order of worship, with a specific wording of the Lord’s Prayer being used, and when they celebrate the Eucharist they use set forms for that, but otherwise the prayers tend to be extempore, however, the congregational hymns are thoroughly traditional, and there is beautiful accompaniment with organ music, and excellent preaching.

By the way I am trying to find Baptist churches that still have traditional hymns, whether organ music or a capella or Square Note / Southern Harmony type, that stream on YouTube, so I can add these to the the churches whose services I keep an eye on. So if you know any that fall into that category, that livestream, preferrably on YouTube, please let me know.

By the way, I did not realize you were Baptist. One of our most knowledgeable forum members, who spends most of his time debunking various heterodox movements in Controversial Christian Theology, and who is also a military veteran, @Der Alte , who I regard as a friend, is Baptist.

It might surprise you to hear this but I really am not interested in any kind of animosity with fellow Nicene Christians. My desire is for our reunification and until that can happen, for us to love one another and have as much unity as is possible, which is why my dialogue with you this morning has been very refreshing.

I particularly like the fact that we seem to be having a sympathetic relationship despite the fact that I’m sort of a specialist in liturgical matters and you are someone who is unused to liturgical worship, which I can certainly understand, and indeed actually the traditional forms of worship in non-liturgical churches like the Salvation Army, or the Reformed Presbyterian Church (the Covenanters), or traditional Baptists, I quite like, even though it is not liturgical in the sense of having formally written prayers.

I would still call it liturgical in the sense that I regard all worship as liturgy, and written prayers are not strictly necessary, although I think they can be helpful, for three reasons: they allow for the avoidance of theological error, they de-emphasize the individual pastor, alllowing him to decrease so that Christ may increase, and they allow for the service to be optimized, with a maximal quotation of Scripture and the most concise and Trinitarian, Christological format for the service (for example, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the main Orthodox liturgy, consists of 93% Scriptural quotations, and the remaining 7% is mainly semantics or proper names or refers to scriptural things using Patristic terminology like the words “Trinity” or “Theotokos”), and this ratio is similiar whether we are talking about the Anglican Book of Common Prayer or the Roman Missal or most liturgical texts, at least those that are worth using.* This also helps enrich the scriptural content of the service, since it is being referred to in the prayers and other fixed portions of the liturgy.


* I don’t reccommend those published by St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco since I think it should be uncontroversial that, for example, a Shinto shrine should have no place in a Christian funeral service, but perhaps I’m old fashioned, or perhaps they’ve missed the mark. It amuses me they selected St. Gregory of Nyssa as their patron saint, presumably because of the widespread misconception that he was an early Universalist (he wasn’t). But he was one of two Early Church Fathers, along with St. Basil the Great, who wrote stinging canons against homosexuality, which can be used to provide definite evidence that the early church rejected homosexuality whenever someone encounters some liberal modernist theologian who argues to the contrary.

 

[Fervent]

Out of curiosity, despite finding liturgical worship alien, well, you know, some aspects of liturgical worship are so subtle you may have seen it and not realized it was liturgical. For example, do you remember Dr. James Kennedy, and how his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church services were broadcast? Because that was, strictly speaking, liturgical. Indeed most Baptist churches follow an order of worship, which is a simplified form of liturgy. And many liturgical churches permit ex temporaneous prayer.

There are also churches which thread the needle between the two while retaining beautiful worship that is also thoroughly traditional. I would cite the Morning Service at Park Street Church in Boston as a good example of this. It is technically litrugical in that it follows a fixed order of worship, with a specific wording of the Lord’s Prayer being used, and when they celebrate the Eucharist they use set forms for that, but otherwise the prayers tend to be extempore, however, the congregational hymns are thoroughly traditional, and there is beautiful accompaniment with organ music, and excellent preaching.

By the way I am trying to find Baptist churches that still have traditional hymns, whether organ music or a capella or Square Note / Southern Harmony type, that stream on YouTube, so I can add these to the the churches whose services I keep an eye on. So if you know any that fall into that category, that livestream, preferrably on YouTube, please let me know.

By the way, I did not realize you were Baptist. One of our most knowledgeable forum members, who spends most of his time debunking various heterodox movements in Controversial Christian Theology, and who is also a military veteran, @Der Alte , who I regard as a friend, is Baptist.

It might surprise you to hear this but I really am not interested in any kind of animosity with fellow Nicene Christians. My desire is for our reunification and until that can happen, for us to love one another and have as much unity as is possible, which is why my dialogue with you this morning has been very refreshing.

I particularly like the fact that we seem to be having a sympathetic relationship despite the fact that I’m sort of a specialist in liturgical matters and you are someone who is unused to liturgical worship, which I can certainly understand, and indeed actually the traditional forms of worship in non-liturgical churches like the Salvation Army, or the Reformed Presbyterian Church (the Covenanters), or traditional Baptists, I quite like, even though it is not liturgical in the sense of having formally written prayers.

I would still call it liturgical in the sense that I regard all worship as liturgy, and written prayers are not strictly necessary, although I think they can be helpful, for three reasons: they allow for the avoidance of theological error, they de-emphasize the individual pastor, alllowing him to decrease so that Christ may increase, and they allow for the service to be optimized, with a maximal quotation of Scripture and the most concise and Trinitarian, Christological format for the service (for example, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the main Orthodox liturgy, consists of 93% Scriptural quotations, and the remaining 7% is mainly semantics or proper names or refers to scriptural things using Patristic terminology like the words “Trinity” or “Theotokos”), and this ratio is similiar whether we are talking about the Anglican Book of Common Prayer or the Roman Missal or most liturgical texts, at least those that are worth using.* This also helps enrich the scriptural content of the service, since it is being referred to in the prayers and other fixed portions of the liturgy.


* I don’t reccommend those published by St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco since I think it should be uncontroversial that, for example, a Shinto shrine should have no place in a Christian funeral service, but perhaps I’m old fashioned, or perhaps they’ve missed the mark. It amuses me they selected St. Gregory of Nyssa as their patron saint, presumably because of the widespread misconception that he was an early Universalist (he wasn’t). But he was one of two Early Church Fathers, along with St. Basil the Great, who wrote stinging canons against homosexuality, which can be used to provide definite evidence that the early church rejected homosexuality whenever someone encounters some liberal modernist theologian who argues to the contrary.

I'm certainly not opposed to any liturgical aspects, its mostly the call and response aspect that I have a hard time engaging in. I have a deep appreciation for liturgical worship, especially see how it is useful for conveying a sense of unity and continuity among the congregation. I just find it personally stifling(which is a bit odd to say since the churches I attend are decidedly buttoned down and understated in their worship styles).

I'm not sure I am a Baptist, since I reject many Baptist disinctives such as the symbolic nature of the sacraments, the Bible as sui genera, sola fide and sola scriptura, the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture, a hard separation between justification and sanctification, typical soteriological and atonement models, etc. I just find myself most comfortable in a Baptist style service.

I only know of one church that has a traditional service with hymns, but I don't think they broadcast that service instead opting to broadcast their primary service. I'll keep an ear out for you, though.

 

[ozso]

Indeed, Scripture itself asserts the importance of Holy Tradition, in the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ch. 2, v. 12, and in his epistle to the Galatians, ch. 1, v. 8-9.

It is also worth noting that the concept of Sola Scriptura taught by Martin Luther and certain other early Protestants is much less problematic than the nuda scriptura doctrine people conflate with it. Basically Luther and Cranmer taught something along the lines of “Scripture, tradition, reason” wherein Scripture was the highest and most authoritative source of doctrine. This became conflated among Puritans, Anabaptists and other Radical Reformation movements, and later among the Restorationist churches, with the doctrines of Sufficiency of Scripture and Perspicuity of Scripture, which result in an anti-traditional, anti-Patristic theology which is extremely problematic and which opens the door for various errors such as the Prosperity Gospel, the errors of the Millerites, and so on.

It should be noted that most Protestants are against the prosperity gospel and fringe groups like the Millerites/SDA.

 

[ozso]

A wise position, though I think there may be enough common ground even with the groups mentioned, with the exception of Adventists and Word of Faith, for mutually beneficial dialogue even if agreement cannot be reached. It is simply that too often the discussion focuses on where we disagree, rather than building on agreements. I say this as someone who started out Baptist and am now in my own category because while I recognize and appreciate the value of tradition and find myself more in agreement with Orthodox theology than with baptist orthodoxy I remain in a Baptist church because highly liturgical worship remains so alien to me. Prayers for the dead to me is also a non-issue, though I do not find myself embracing the practice I find no fault with those who do especially given the historic nature.

To me it seems the problem with praying to Mary, praying to the Saints, praying for the dead etc, is it is a distraction from praying to God the way God Himself instructed us on how to pray and what to pray for.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There are verses that say to reject teaching outside of what Christ and the apostles taught though. The work around for that is one or more of those verses say taught in writing or by word of mouth, which is said to mean that there's unwritten word of mouth teachings of the apostles. But usually what are called word of mouth teachings/traditions, have a start date in the fourth century onward. So it can't be verified that those teachings/traditions existed from the beginning.

The early Church was a deeply conservative institution. It might not be documented with many extant writings from the first century (the not too long ago discovered Didache for example) but there is enough from the second and third centuries that I can believe that Tradition and Scripture are compatible. The fourth century was amazing, particularly the Cappadocian Fathers, but they are building on what came before.

 

[Fervent]

To me it seems the problem with praying to Mary, praying to the Saints, praying for the dead etc, is it is a distraction from praying to God the way God Himself instructed us on how to pray and what to pray for.

Seems to me that's an issue between the individual offering the prayer and God. If you feel convicted it's wrong, don't do it. But who are you to judge another man's servant?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The principle of sola scriptura, which is to say that Scripture is the final arbiter of doctrine, is present in several of the fathers.

I'll grant you there is incredible respect for Scripture in the Fathers but I'd have to ask some Orthodox people if they agree with you about Sola Scriptura being present in the Fathers.

I gave two examples, in Gregory of Nyssa regarding the Arian controversy and Iraeneus regarding the gnostics, but its found in several others as well.

I wonder if you are reading back anachronistically a concept from the 1500's?

I then made a comment that sola scriptura when properly understood is a lot closer to the orthodox view of Scripture in tradition than most realize, but that is not to say they are the same thing. what I am trying to bring out is simply that sola scriptura is not about neglecting tradition and reading the Bible in a vacuum, but in treating Scripture as the final authority over doctrine.

I'm fine with how the Orthodox view Scripture. Scripture is primary and nothing that contradicts properly understood Scripture is allowable. I see it as essentially how I view Scripture. And how the Catholic Church views Scripture. You can see Dei Verbum for details on that: Dei verbum

I think you have a definition of Sola Scriptura that might be more serviceable than most. But then again there are many definitions of Sola Scriptura floating around out there. And who is to say yours is the 'right' one? That definition is hotly contested. I'm sure, because I've seen it many times in CF, that you guys could have a big argument about Sola Scriptura just among people who are committed Sola Scriptura adherents. Please I don't want to have that here, but I presume you have seen these arguments too.

 

[Fervent]

I'll grant you there is incredible respect for Scripture in the Fathers but I'd have to ask some Orthodox people if they agree with you about Sola Scriptura being present in the Fathers.

I wonder if you are reading back anachronistically a concept from the 1500's?

I'm fine with how the Orthodox view Scripture. Scripture is primary and nothing that contradicts properly understood Scripture is allowable. I see it as essentially how I view Scripture. And how the Catholic Church views Scripture. You can see Dei Verbum for details on that: Dei verbum

I think you have a definition of Sola Scriptura that might be more serviceable than most. But then again there are many definitions of Sola Scriptura floating around out there. And who is to say yours is the 'right' one? That definition is hotly contested. I'm sure, because I've seen it many times in CF, that you guys could have a big argument about Sola Scriptura just among people who are committed Sola Scriptura adherents. Please I don't want to have that here, but I presume you have seen these arguments too.

I actually don't hold to sola scriptura, simply pointing out that the version put forward by the reformers is defensible in the fathers. Though polemically, I likely overstated this. The extent to which I could be said to believe in it is that I view the doctrine of Apostolic succession to be that of an infallible episcopal tradition as erroneous. My personal view of Scripture is much closer to the Orthodox view, which is to say that I don't regard the Bible as a distinct entity from tradition with unique properties but as the central pillar of a communal tradition going back to the earliest churches.

 

[ozso]

The early Church was a deeply conservative institution. It might not be documented with many extant writings from the first century (the not too long ago discovered Didache for example) but there is enough from the second and third centuries that I can believe that Tradition and Scripture are compatible. The fourth century was amazing, particularly the Cappadocian Fathers, but they are building on what came before.

I was taking the second and third centuries into consideration. It seems from the first throughout most of the third century church tradition and practice was consistent with scripture. But gong into the fourth century onward it seems additional traditions and practices were established that are far less consistent with scripture. And the justification for that seems to be that those additional traditions and practices that aren't consistent with scripture are based unrecorded word of mouth from Christ and the Apostles.

 

[ozso]

Seems to me that's an issue between the individual offering the prayer and God. If you feel convicted it's wrong, don't do it. But who are you to judge another man's servant?

It's not about the individual, it's about the institution and what kinds of demands the institution makes upon the individual.