Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia: Accountability and Norming

[Trento]

MY perspective....





.


How all that changed to become the dogma of the Bishop of Rome as the infallible arbiter for faith and practice, and the teachings of a teacher as the norma normas for himself (but only if that teacher is the CC and the teachings are of the CC), I don't know. I only know it took 1,877 years to do it (I think this became dogma in that year).



See post # 12 where I address this more fully.


MY perspective.
What's yours?


Thank you!


Pax.


- Josiah

You are off by 1800 years.

While Schaff (a 19th century anti-Catholic Presbyterian/Reformed church history scholar) does not accept the Papacy, He is more truthful his History.

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked , gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)


​

St. Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.)

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN, ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION."
[then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father." (Against Heresies 4:26:2)

There is the classical fallacy behind the problem of many authorities.


​

Yes, each man must obey his conscience, which is the operation of the practical (not the speculative) intellect. And yes, each man must use the power of his own reason to know and of his own will to choose. But neither of these obligations replaces the authority of divine Revelation or the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. In fact, it is the obligation of each man to inform his intellect and conscience with the truths given to us through divine Revelation and transmitted through time by the Magisterium. Each man then appropriates the saving truth of the Gospel in his own time and place, but that is simply not the same thing as the operation of private judgment in religion as described and condemned by John Henry Newman. The former is the surrender of our entire being to God in the obedience of faith and the latter is the prideful refusal to be taught by anyone or anything except our own experiences and judgments.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From Catholic Church Cathechism (that is anyway not free from mistakes):


106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

But the follwing statment is VERY important to undestand our Faith: the starting point is Christ, not the Bible:108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Thank you.
I essentially agree.

THAT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH EPISTOMOLOGY, NOT SOLA ECCELSIA

Hum.
Nothing in those speaks of the embraced epistemological principle of norming at all.

 

[hungrytiger]

As I understand the CC, EO, and OO view, the present church cannot just claim whatever it wants as infaliable truth. You seem to imply this with your "Self arbitrates the teachings of self according to the teachings of self" type statements. The church has to (at least) be consistent with the church of the past. We cannot change the past. The Bible is an infallible record of some of that, and so of course it's important to be consistent with it, but why should it be the sole rule though?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't know. I only know it took 1,877 years to do it (I think this became dogma in that year).

You are off by 1800 years.

So, in what year and by whom/what was the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff declared to be dogma? I thought it was by the Catholic Church in 1877, but that's just off the top of my head, from memory.


If it was declared to be dogma in 206 AD, why doesn't the EO embrace it as dogma? What Council happened in 206 AD?


Thank you.


MY perspective...


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[jckstraw72]

the Church is accountable to God and His Holy Tradition, not to any people within the Church

 

[Lotar]

Josiah,

First off you must take your own advice and read what I have written, instead of automatically applying what you think I mean by certain words. When I refer to "Church" in reference to your beliefs, I am doing so under the definition you supplied. It was your opening statement that says the entire Church is the arbitrator. I am not referring to denominations.

Now, allow me to address some issues here. We must first look at things from a logical standing point.
Entity: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence.
Rule: prescribed guide for conduct or action
Now, it is impossible for an entity to be held accountable by a rule, it is only possible for it to be accountable to a rule. So, the Church cannot be held accountable by Scripture.

So, if the Church is accountable to Scripture, who then holds it accountable? The answer is that it is the individual who holds the corporate accountable to Scripture. There is no other possible option, as there are only two visible entities in play here, corporate and individual.

Doctrine:a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true
Now, you can make the claim that sola scriptura is not dogma, but it certainly fits the definition of doctrine and is therefore subject to analysis as such.

For the sake of clarity, in the following, assume "Church" to mean the entire body of Christians.
The consensus of the Church can take the form in two different ways, which are, rejecting a doctrine or embracing a doctrine. Prior to the Reformation, the entire Church embraced the view that the individual was accountable to the Church. As such, it was in the likeness of the Arian controversy. The Church did not have a pre-existing explicit rejection of the new doctrines for the very reason that they had never been proposed before. What the Church did have was a pre-existing implicit rejection of the new doctrines, in other words, the Church's consensus had been to embrace doctrines that were mutually exclusive to the new ones.
At the advent of the Reformation, there were only three Christian bodies: the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Oriental Church. All three of these bodies held to a view concerning the Church that was mutually exclusive to sola scriptura, and had maintained it for the previous 1500 years.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the Church is accountable to God and His Holy Tradition, not to any people within the Church

Long time, no see...


Yes, I've found that all Christians tend to affirm that they are accountable to God - and indeed we are. And perhaps we'll all know God's arbitration when we get to heaven. But that's not the question here. I suppose a man accused of murder could argue that no law applies to him, that he is accountable only to God and God alone will be his judge - and he has a point. But we're trying to develop some way to advance consensus among us now, some way to build unity now, some way to best address the issue of which dogma is correct. Follow?


Friend, how do you know now if your denomination's teachings have been arbitrated as correct or erronious by GOD? Who or what determines that?

Unless you equate your denomination (or some human agent or agency within it) as God or an infallible spokesperson for God, how do you know? Who/what decides if God approves or not? In denominations that embrace Sola Ecclesia, it's they themselves, the self-same denomination that decides if God affirms the teaching of their denomination. This, often, because they have self-claimed themselves to essentially be THE Church (sometimes even to be God and/or Christ Himself), self-claimed their own denomination to have unique authorities to interpret Scripture and Tradition (perhaps infallibly) and to be the 'sole final arbiter" for their own self. As my priest loved to quote, "Whoever hears them, hears Me" (assuming, of course, that Jesus used 'them' as a pronoun for the magisterium of the same Catholic Church which is arbitrating the teachings of the self-same Catholic Church - infallably).


And who/what decides what is and is not "infallible preaching" "Tradition?" This corpus of infallible, authoritative stuff that isn't in the Holy Scriptures? Could it be the self-same denomination using the self-same "Tradition" as the norma normans for the self-same denomination as it arbitrates itself according to that self-proclaimed infallible tradition? AND, if it is assumed (as it is) that ALL the teachings of this denomination are taught in the Tradition of the self-same denomination as the self-same denomination defines, interprets and applies it, then isn't the teaching going to be affirmed as being contained there and thus normed by it??? I can't see how this can be avoided. Of course, there are Traditions which are strongly ecumenical in nature, embraced by virtually all parties in the discussion - in that case, the arguement is stronger, but I"d still consider that to be norma normata, not norma normans.


Thanks.


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This cannot be done impartially.....because of the vast amount of interpretations, and ways to read into something..........

And why not just trust the earlier writers...such as Justin Martyr?
Ireneaus?
Ignatius?
Polycarp?
etc etc...?

Surely the earliest of them can shed light on Tradition.

 

[Trento]

So, in what year and by whom/what was the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff declared to be dogma? I thought it was by the Catholic Church in 1877, but that's just off the top of my head, from memory.


If it was declared to be dogma in 206 AD, why doesn't the EO embrace it as dogma? What Council happened in 206 AD?


Thank you.


MY perspective...


Pax.


- Josiah

It is a fact which every enquirer can see for himself, and which no believer can deny, that Christianity has developed. There has also been theological development. And -- most important for our present argument -- there has been dogmatic and, I add, doctrinal development. A clear illustration of dogmatic development is the articulation of Christian belief about the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity in the great conciliar decisions from A.D. 325 to A.D. 680.
The result of such development is that many statements by the Fathers of the first three centuries would be condemned as heretical if made by medieval or modern writers. Similarly, it can be said that the doctrine of the sacramental minister has developed since the days of St. Cyprian, who denied the reality of Baptism conferred by schismatics and heretics.
If Christianity is a living thing it is only to be expected that it too will develop.
It is therefore true that there is something which has since 1870 been an article of the Catholic faith which was not such before that date. But it does not follow that "the faith of the Church of Rome" has changed, since the faith is coextensive with the Christian revelation and thus more comprehensive than the sum-total of the "articles of the Catholic faith."
When you received the word of the message of God from us, you received it not as a human word, but (as in truth it is) as the word of God." (1 Thess 2:13) (This is exactly the same as the claim made for its teaching by the Catholic Church). But there is no reason why Christ should have conveyed his infallible teaching authority to his Church for a generation only. If the Church was to endure till Christ's second coming, and to represent him in all subsequent ages, it will follow that her teaching will be his teaching not only till the death of the last Apostle, but so long as she herself endures. She claims no "infallibility" other than that which, through the Apostles and the primitive Christian community, she derives from him, who is the "word" of God "made flesh" (John 1:14) and who said to his first followers: "He who receives [hears] you, receives [hears] me" (Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16).

The truth is, that development is visible in that brief section of the Christian story of which the New Testament books are a fragmentary record, and in the last resort the choice is between accepting the principle of development and rejecting the Christian claim to possess a divine revelation.
Every article of the Catholic faith expresses a constituent element of the Christian revelation. But no constituent element of the Christian revelation is an article of the Catholic faith until it has been thus authoritatively defined and imposed. Until an element of the Christian revelation becomes, by such definition, an "article of the Catholic faith" the penalties of heresy are not incurred by those who withhold from it their assent.​

 

[a_ntv]

But the follwing statment is VERY important to undestand our Faith: the starting point is Christ, not the Bible:108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Thank you.
I essentially agree.

THAT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH EPISTOMOLOGY, NOT SOLA ECCELSIA

Hum.
Nothing in those speaks of the embraced epistemological principle of norming at all.

You cannot see how it is a epistomology bc you miss the Theology of the Church, that is a base for CC,EO,OO.

Here some lines to explain you (anyway extremy concise and so un-accurate)
- by first delete in your mind the idea that the Church is an Institution. Denomination and Church are NOT the same things at all. There are many denominations and only one Church.
- Start from above point 108 of chatechism: Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and livinig: so the Scripture (the Word) get the real meaning when is incarnate and living.
- What is incarnate ? read John 1:1, it is the Word of God that is both Scripture and Christ. That is the reason why we incense the Gospel. The Scripture itself is incarnate.
- So the Scripture reveals all itself only in Christ. To say that the Scripture is norming for us is to say that the Word, Christ is norming.
- But Chirst was a sinple person, the archetype of all men. How can we be in Him? By the Holy Spirit that build us in the Body of Christ, the Church (that shall be one as one is Christ)
- When we say that the Church is the Body of Christ, we are not using a metaphora
- Scripture->Word->Christ->Church, or better in the right order Christ->Word->Church->Scripture. How? by the Holy Spirit.
- So we cannot look at the Scripture out from the Church and without Christ as the norming. That is our epistemology.

 

[NewToLife]

I think that if Orthodox are really going to participate in this discussion that some discussion of how Orthodox validate that a teaching is correct needs to take place. Certainly the description of Sola Ecclessia that CJ offers doesnt really reflect the Orthodox approach. I wont comment on the approach of the churches in communion with the Vatican/Rome.

Firstly Orthodox do not have a developed theology of the universal church, for us each diocese is the fullness of the Church, paraphrasing St Ignatius, where the Bishop is there is the Church. The Bishop is authoritative in his diocese and no Bishop has authority outside of his own diocese. In practise, we have a hierarchy of Bishops for administrative reasons but a higher ranking Bishop does not exercise authority in a diocese beyond his own on matters of faith.

As many will be aware Orthodox recognise 7 ecumenical councils and perhaps there is some confusion that an ecumenical council is the highest authority in the Church. It isnt, the local churches are, each Bishop stands in Christ's place and is a successor to St Peter, there can be no higher authority than Christ. Of course once a council has been accepted as ecumenical it becomes authoritative but it is vital to recognise that each Orthodox church ( there are currently I believe 15 ) has the right to reject a council as ecumenical. In the end ecumenical councils have authority simply because they are ecumenical and not for any other reason pertaining to Emperors or Patriarchs.

If we look at history we see 2 obvious examples of the local Churches overturning a council originally intended to be ecumenical, the council of Ephesus ( 449 ) which was originally rejected in Rome before being rejected universally and also The council of Ferrar-Florence which was rejected initially by the civil authorities in Moscow before being rejected by the Russian Bishops and then universally within the oikumene, in both cases we should recognise that the backing of many senior bishops in council was not enough to alter Orthodoxy, the local Churches, had the final say.

For the Orthodox the Church enjoys a guarantee from the Holy Spirit that it will not fall into error, that right teaching will always persist somewhere and will prevail in the end, not least because the testimony of the Tradition ( central to which is scripture ) and history of the Church stand against error alongside the faithful who remain today. In practise this could mean as few as one living Bishop adherring to the truth in the face of widespread heresy, but that Bishop and his diocese would be the fullness of the Church ( as they are at all times ), this approach has been enough to guarantee Orthodoxy through the ages.

The Orthodox Church does not rely on logical principles or look to a worldly guarantee, instead it lives by the Holy Spirit and commits itself to God's care. It is in essence a faith based approach to guaranteeing it's teaching.

My apologies to other Orthodox if my explanation is clumsy or perhaps some disagree with aspects of what i have written, this is not intended to be an exhaustive explanation and I accept correction willingly.

 

[a_ntv]

..The Orthodox Church does not rely on logical principles or look to a worldly guarantee, instead it lives by the Holy Spirit and commits itself to God's care. It is in essence a faith based approach to guaranteeing it's teaching.
....

That is exactly also the Catholic Church attituded.

We cannot look at the Scripture out from the Church, that is the Body of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

And the Rappresentative of the Church are the Bishops. Not Bible scolars.

 

[racer]

According to your definition, correct practice of sola scriptura requires the Church to be the arbitrator (A person chosen by both sides in a dispute that hears details of the dispute and gives a decision on settling the dispute). In this you will find no dispute from Orthodoxy (and I assume Catholicism).

I do think there is one difference. It is that RCs and EOs believe that the arbitrator to be infallible, others do not.

If this is what you believe, our dispute is not in the role of the Church as arbitrator, since the Church is an entity, not a rule.

The church is the teaching authority. It is the “expert” in the sense it is the most knowledgeable entity regarding the Gospel. To us, for it to be expert in this sense does not imply or assert that it is infallible.

Our dispute would then seem to be in three aspects, what the norms are, the infallibility of the Church, and what constitutes the Church. On the first, we believe (as St. Paul states in his epistle) that we are to keep fidelity to the whole of Tradition, not just Scripture alone.

Where does St. Paul say this?

On the second, we believe that the Church is infallible in her arbitration.

And we don’t.

We must look at this issue of the arbitration of the Church versus arbitration of the individual.

This is not an issue here, which means looking at it is a waste of time. Nobody, and certainly not Josiah, has asserted that individuals are arbitrators of Scripture. Remember, you just quoted him above, “According to your definition, correct practice of sola scriptura requires the Church to be the arbitrator . . . . “

Now, in light of your view of sola scriptura, it is to be believed that the Church, which is fallible, is the arbitrator of the norm, which is infallible. On the other hand, the historic pre-Reformation view of the Church was that the Church, which is infallible, is the arbitrator of the norm, which is infallible.

This is a claim you can not substantiate. Simply asserting this here does not make if factual or believable for those of us who disagree.

This here can help bring us to an expanded view of sola scriptura, through your example of accountability. Sola scriptura does not mean that the Church is held accountable by the rule (as it is impossible, being that it is not an entity), rather, it means that the Church is held accountable to the rule by the individual.

Wrong. This is what you’ve inferred from your misconception and misrepresentation of SS. You are ignoring Josiah’s points here and continuing the discussion upon your understanding of the doctrine.

Herein lays the hidden fourth aspect of dispute, as we believe the individual is held accountable to the rule by the Church. This is why, in your view, Martin Luther (an individual) was able to dispute the established position of the Church, and establish views like sola scriptura and sola fide.

Wrong again. We believe the individual and the church are both equally accountable to God.

The next major problem we come across here is that it appears to me that these Protestant positions, including sola scriptura, were apparently rejected by the Church,

Rejected by certain members in positions of authority in the church—for obvious reasons and not so obvious reasons.

The problem here is that the Church, which is the arbitrator in both of our views, had an established position; so how did it change?

It assumed too much and took liberties with the Great Commission.

We understand that in the eyes of sola scriptura that it is possible for the Church to change positions,

Who is we, and where did you get such an idea? SS proponents do not believe that the church—as a whole—has changed positions.

but how does this take place?

When people take liberties with God’s word or misapply His commands.

In addition, how does the Church establish a position and how is its arbitration enforced?

The position—or better, mission—of the Church was established by Christ. It’s arbitration is enforced by checking what is taught in the church with Scripture.

 

[icxn]

...Admittedly: it ain't easy. It takes humility, study, work, prayer, time. I confess, it is so much easier and quicker to just have a Dictator say "I say!" and everyone shuts up, a Dictator who self-claims to be infallible and unaccountable, above Gods Word and people, above the law; a Dictator of amazing ego. Some, however, just aren't sure that's a better system of accountability - and that's what we're talking about - accountability.

IMO it takes more humility to ask and accept the teaching of others:

One elder passed seventy days in fasting, eating food only twice a week, as he begged the Lord to reveal to him the meaning of a passage in Holy Scripture. But God would not reveal it to him. Seeing this, the elder said to himself, "I have labored long and hard, and I have accomplished nothing. I will go to my brother and ask him."

When he had left his cell and locked the door behind him, an angel from the Lord appeared and said to him: "Seventy days of fasting did not bring you nearer to God. Now, however, when you have humbled yourself and resolved to go to your brother with your question, I have been sent to you to explain the meaning of this passage." And fulfilling this, the angel departed. - The Paterikon of Bishop Ignatius, found in Spiritual Sowings.
​

 

[WarriorAngel]

This cannot be done impartially.....because of the vast amount of interpretations, and ways to read into something..........

And why not just trust the earlier writers...such as Justin Martyr?
Ireneaus?
Ignatius?
Polycarp?
etc etc...?

Surely the earliest of them can shed light on Tradition.

I was stepped over, and someone left their foot print on my ear.....dont let me catch who did it.......

 

[Asinner]

I was stepped over, and someone left their foot print on my ear.....dont let me catch who did it.......

I know the feeling. Maybe this is a guy thread, eh?

 

[Lotar]

racer,

I agree that both the Church and individual is accountable to God. My point that is skipped is that Josiah wants his system to have an outward perceptible accountability. So, who then holds the Church accountable to Scripture? If not the individual, who is left?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I know the feeling. Maybe this is a guy thread, eh?

Maybe!! It should have said..."Guys Only" right?

Boys club house, keep out.

So, did you get any foot prints too?

 

[racer]

the Church is accountable to God and His Holy Tradition, not to any people within the Church

Why do you refuse to stop at saying, "the church is accountable to God?"

 

[racer]

IMO it takes more humility to ask and accept the teaching of others:

I disagree. I think it's easier to say, "Gee, I just don't know what to think, and I don't know if that's the Holy Spirit talking to me, but I'm not taking any chances. These guys look smarter than me, their older than me, then by default they must know more than me. I'll just go along with what they say." This way, you don't feel so personally accountable.