Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[Thursday]

Reformation, not rejection. In Luther's case, at least. And unless you truly and utterly believe that the Roman church in the 1500s didn't have a mountain of problems, I don't see why you would have a problem with that.

That was true, initially, but not later in his life.

The Church always has and always will have a mountain of problems. After all, our first pope denied Jesus three times!

That's not the point.

 

[Charlie7399]

Scripture is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son.

A Catholic ignoring the Early Fathers and relying solely on Scripture?! *gasp*

 

[Charlie7399]

That was true, initially, but not later in his life.

I guess you get a bit disillusioned when the supposed "one true church" tries to get you killed, you know.

 

[Thursday]

I guess you get a bit disillusioned when the supposed "one true church" tries to get you killed, you know.

That is not what happened. The Church was very patient with Luther but he kept pushing it, then it became political as regional powers started choosing sides.

 

[mark46]

There was nothing new or unique about the leadership role of the successor of Peter.

The doctrinal differences were trivial. Scripture is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, for example. That addition to the Creed fits with scripture and Church teaching, but it seems to have been used as a wedge rather than being a true doctrinal red flag.

For you the argument about procession is is trivial. For you the acceptance of the Western understanding of original sin (and the Immaculate Conception) is trivial.

Most importantly, Vatican I and Vatican II doubled down on the RCC understanding of the role and authority of the pope. The Vatican did not, and does not consider this a trivial set of doctrines. Do you disagree?

 

[Charlie7399]

That is not what happened. The Church was very patient with Luther but he kept pushing it, then it became political as regional powers started choosing sides.

So for you Exsurge Domine was a patient response? Sending Johann Eck to convince the princes that Luther was another Hus and get him burned, just after the publication of the 95 Theses, was a patient response? Dear me. I wonder what an impatient one would be.

 

[Thursday]

For you the argument about procession is is trivial. For you the acceptance of the Western understanding of original sin (and the Immaculate Conception) is trivial.

Most importantly, Vatican I and Vatican II doubled down on the RCC understanding of the role and authority of the pope. The Vatican did not, and does not consider this a trivial set of doctrines. Do you disagree?

Those doctrinal disputes didn't exist before the political divide developed.

Some quotes from earlier Eastern Patriarchs that make this point explicitly:

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430)

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.
I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649)

Writing to Pope Theodore:
O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

 

[mark46]

That is not what happened. The Church was very patient with Luther but he kept pushing it, then it became political as regional powers started choosing sides.

Again, this is an interesting understanding that may not be shared by most Catholics. I do believe that Luther was an Augustinian monk, devoted to tradition, devoted to Mary, who wanted to reform the obvious excesses and wrong teaching in the Church.

Luther taught that eternal life is only available by the Grace of God alone, through our faith alone in Christ Jesus alone. Here he stood. And the Church rejected him. The Church has changed much in 500 years. In 1986, the Joint Declaration regarding justification outlined the misunderstandings and the current common ground. Personally, I think that much will happen in 2017, the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting of his protests to the problems in the the 16th century Church. The Vatican has signaled that Pope Francis will participate in many of the commemorations. We all will pay special attention to his actions and statements. Of course, some Catholics will oppose his teachings as they have done of popes since Vatican II.

 

[Thursday]

So for you Exsurge Domine was a patient response? Sending Johann Eck to convince the princes that Luther was another Hus and get him burned, just after the publication of the 95 Theses, was a patient response? Dear me. I wonder what an impatient one would be.

I think you might have a one sided historical take on this.

Try this when you get time:
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martin-luther

 

[mark46]

The difference between these statements and now, is the issue of the councils. The Bishop of Rome was the first among equal patriarch, and the leader of the councils as Macedonius declared. That is far from the understanding of Vatican I and Vatican II,
with its doctrines regarding the pope. Within the Latin Church, it is the pope's decision that is final. The Bishop of Rome is both prime decision-maker and infallible. Orthodox churches do not have theses understandings. They believe in decisions by the council of patriarchs. No patriarch can order other patriarchs to do anything.
======
To be clear, perhaps you should go to TAW and suggest that there are no non-trivial doctrinal differences between Catholics and Orthodox. Please feel free to post your answer (and give reference so that we can see it). Orthodox today disagree with your assessment.

Those doctrinal disputes didn't exist before the political divide developed.

Some quotes from earlier Eastern Patriarchs that make this point explicitly:

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430)

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.
I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649)

Writing to Pope Theodore:
O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

 

[Grafted In]

I would like to personally thank all the members who believe that their church is the one true church.

Many years ago I worked beside a Baptist who believed that his home church, although there are perhaps dozens of Baptist churches in the area, was the only truly Baptist church because they made their own communal wine with a formula passed down from generation to generation.
In the few short years i've been a member of CF, he doesn't seem to be such a kook to me anymore.

 

[~Anastasia~]

 

[Grafted In]

Oops. Struck a nerve. I'm gone.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Oops. Struck a nerve. I'm gone.

This reminder was directed toward the thread in general.

 

[Charlie7399]

I think you might have a one sided historical take on this.

Try this when you get time:
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martin-luther

Nah mate, I don't. But I wouldn't be suprised if a site called "catholic.com" had.

 

[ViaCrucis]

A more wholistic approach to Christian belief--one that incorporates Scripture, history, experience in a "rule of faith"--does not approach interpretation of Scripture in this way. The "meanings" of Scripture are not sitting in the text, simply waiting as "objective truths" to be mined by whatever interpreter might come along. Rather, the Scriptures are themselves imbued with meaning (and yes, even truth!) as they are interpreted within the historical outflowing of the Church. In this way, even authorial intent--a perennial interest of modern historical/critical methodologies--is subordinated to the rule of faith.

While I wouldn't agree that it is subordinate, I do think this is a very valuable way of approaching the subject. We can see in the New Testament itself that early Christians took to understanding certain passages of Scripture in light of Christ. So, for example, St. Matthew takes Hosea 11:1 which reads, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son," and applies it then to Jesus, "He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'" (Matthew 2:15). From a purely exegetical vantage point this is a really bad reading of the text from Hosea, but Matthew isn't intending on doing scholarly exegesis, but on conveying the Gospel in text; and there is a thematic element in the New Testament writings where Jesus, as the Messiah, is understood as the summation of Israel. Jesus is Israel. So when Isaiah in ch. 53 speaks of Israel as the suffering servant, early Christians understood there to be the sufferings of the Messiah.

This rather specific Christian approach to what we now call the Old Testament remains a significant point of disagreement between Jews and Christians, because Jews are doing academic exegesis on their Scriptures, and we have a long history of re-interpreting and re-understanding the Scriptures in light of Jesus Christ.

Though, again, I don't know that the exegetical should be said to be in anyway less than the Church's historic interpretive rule of faith; instead I'd say we need both equally and, perhaps, even keeping them in tension.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

And Anglican theologian once suggested a way of think of this, unacceptable to almost all traditional communities. He suggested that we have one visible Church with branches (schisms) over the ages. There is but one root and stem, Jesus Christ.

Yes, I think that's right. I think it's a mistake to say that the Church is invisible. You can make a pretty good Scriptural case that Jesus intended there to be visible Christian community, with Christian leaders who have authority. This implies a visible Church with structure.

What's not visible is our unity, because as your Anglican theologian said, that unity is in Christ. While I think you can make a good Biblical case that Christ intended a visible Church, it's less clear that he specified its organization. Would he find individual congregations with loose relationships acceptable, or would he only accept a single organization with one infallible head? I don't think that's clear.

What I do think is an issue is the difficulty in relations among the various visible parts. Conflict was present from the beginning, as we can see in the letters of Paul and others. You'd think that a community whose founder placed such a high priority on reconciliation could find a way to maintain unity in Christ even though people disagreed on various things.

Unfortunately a pattern developed of trying to exclude everyone who disagreed. And the issue was postponed by the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. That allowed the Church to enforce conformity. But there was a cost: it allowed the Church to avoid dealing with the problem of maintaining a unity in Christ in the face of disagreement. In the 16th Cent that political solution stopped working. I honestly think over the last 100 years we've started developing ways to work together. I think it may take another 100 years to mostly deal with this issue, but I do think Christians will be able to find a way.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Perhaps a better term would be the outward church. When the 7 churches of Revelations were judged they had all already failed.

 

[Thursday]

Nah mate, I don't. But I wouldn't be suprised if a site called "catholic.com" had.

Yes, that's the other side of the story that you seem unfamiliar with. For decades I only knew your side. The Reformation is not what you've been taught.

 

[hedrick]

I’ve often criticized the Church for enforcing conformity for 1000 years. But it’s also worth noting that the challenges faced by the Church are different at different times.

During much of Christianity history, the Church acted as a unifying authority for the society. While the Catholic and Orthodox churches differed in a number of ways, their cultures didn’t interact enough that that was a problem. Each acted to unify its society.

But today we are living in a larger and more diverse world, with all too many wars. I think the Church is now called to produce a model of communion that will allow for differences in ideology and tradition. That would let us be a light for the world.

Is this relevant to sola scriptura? Yes, I think so. Scripture is not well suited for giving simple answers. Jesus seems more interested in challenging people than producing either theological systems or church polities. I think the NT is actually well suited to provide the basis for a body of Christians who have one Lord but many theologies.