The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[Gxg (G²)]

What most interested me was the part where he talked about how the Reformers understood Sola Scriptura (and I would argue that it is their understanding that matters, since they were the ones originally arguing for it). Specifically that they allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not to lord over it). I had not realized this, and I'd like to explore whether those in the Reformed Tradition still agree with this, and what that might look like.

To be honest, I do not find it that different from the way the Orthodox Church explains their view of Scripture, which is namely that while Tradition as a whole informs the Church, Scripture is the central and most authoritative part of that Tradition.

A lot of the ways Sola Scriptura is blasted is done on the basis of not understanding what Sola Scriptura was actually about to begin with and it is something which many have said for years, including within Orthodoxy.

I was just discussing the other day with my older brother/teacher from my high school days (as he's Reformed) and he recommended to me an excellent book on the issue that I've really been thankful for. It's called The Shape of Sola Scriptura

​

The other one is entitled "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First"

​

Orthodoxy has much in line with the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura when seeing how it used to be described, from the perspective of Prima Scriptura. As another noted best (on the book entitled...) for a brief excerpt:

I Am re-reading “Common Ground” by Jordan Bajis for about the tenth time. This workbook is an excellent primer on Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. This is the best easiest to read and well documented book with this purpose that I have found yet. Luther and Calvin, he shows, were well aware that to KNOW the Scriptures alone was not sufficient. For them, Sola Scriptura was “not a call to see the Bible as the authority of the Church, but a call FOR THE CHURCH TO ONCE AGAIN INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES IN ACCORD WITH THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH (emphasis mine).


The first generation Reformers were not against true Tradition, they sought to recover it (from within the corrupt context of Rome, and other factors of the time – RAS) by uncovering the Biblical message the fathers had faithfully defended.” As a response to Rome (not to the Orthodox – they were separated by geography and Islam and not involved in the conflict, although they fully would concur that Rome had departed from the genuine faith) the Reformers “held up the Bible and the doctrine of sola scriptura as a SHIELD. Reformers of LATER generations reshaped this shield into a SWORD against Rome by proclaiming the Bible as the sole authority of the Church.” It is clear that Zwingli, and the Anabaptists took this path to the extreme by rejecting all church history and history of theology, and we see the fruit of confusion, division (and in some cases plain nonsense) that this developed doctrine since the western reformation has in modern western Christendom today. The Orthodox would have no problem with the first generation of reformers view of the scriptures (especially in battling against Rome’s claims), although Prima Scriptura would probably be a more accurate phrase to clear up the confusion.​

 

[faroukfarouk]

What many of the Reformers also wanted to do was to take the RCC's Medieval canon law and scholastic philosophical styles of theology and impose them on local congregations that at first thought they were being true to the Bible alone.

What the man and woman in the pew had to realize was that their religious leaders, as well as being rhetorically Protestant, wanted themselves to fill the vacuum left by Roman authority systems.

 

[~Anastasia~]

A lot of the ways Sola Scriptura is blasted is done on the basis of not understanding what Sola Scriptura was actually about to begin with and it is something which many have said for years, including within Orthodoxy.

I was just discussing the other day with my older brother/teacher from my high school days (as he's Reformed) and he recommended to me an excellent book on the issue that I've really been thankful for. It's called The Shape of Sola Scriptura

​

The other one is entitled "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First"

​

Orthodoxy has much in line with the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura when seeing how it used to be described, from the perspective of Prima Scriptura. As another noted best (on the book entitled...) for a brief excerpt:

I Am re-reading “Common Ground” by Jordan Bajis for about the tenth time. This workbook is an excellent primer on Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. This is the best easiest to read and well documented book with this purpose that I have found yet. Luther and Calvin, he shows, were well aware that to KNOW the Scriptures alone was not sufficient. For them, Sola Scriptura was “not a call to see the Bible as the authority of the Church, but a call FOR THE CHURCH TO ONCE AGAIN INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES IN ACCORD WITH THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH (emphasis mine).


The first generation Reformers were not against true Tradition, they sought to recover it (from within the corrupt context of Rome, and other factors of the time – RAS) by uncovering the Biblical message the fathers had faithfully defended.” As a response to Rome (not to the Orthodox – they were separated by geography and Islam and not involved in the conflict, although they fully would concur that Rome had departed from the genuine faith) the Reformers “held up the Bible and the doctrine of sola scriptura as a SHIELD. Reformers of LATER generations reshaped this shield into a SWORD against Rome by proclaiming the Bible as the sole authority of the Church.” It is clear that Zwingli, and the Anabaptists took this path to the extreme by rejecting all church history and history of theology, and we see the fruit of confusion, division (and in some cases plain nonsense) that this developed doctrine since the western reformation has in modern western Christendom today. The Orthodox would have no problem with the first generation of reformers view of the scriptures (especially in battling against Rome’s claims), although Prima Scriptura would probably be a more accurate phrase to clear up the confusion.​

Thank you so much, GxG!

That is essentially what I was seeing, and guessing at, and I wondered if that was the case. I just didn't articulate it nearly so well.

That was my first observation, that the way in which CL quoted the Reformed position on Sola Scriptura does not appear to be so different from the Orthodox belief.

Whether or not either one played out according to the codified ideal wasn't really part of it (and I suspect it has more to do with the age of the Orthodox Church, and the reactions necessary in the Lutheran in cases where they didn't).

But yes, what you quoted here, agrees quite well as an outline with what I thought I was seeing. Thank you. That is most helpful.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I read

But I didn't come away from it feeling like I'd read something that was important ... it was slightly interesting.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What many of the Reformers also wanted to do was to take the RCC's Medieval canon law and scholastic philosophical styles of theology and impose them on local congregations that at first thought they were being true to the Bible alone.

What the man and woman in the pew had to realize was that their religious leaders, as well as being rhetorically Protestant, wanted themselves to fill the vacuum left by Roman authority systems.

You're describing the later Protestants protesting against the early Protestants?

I think that seems to be what the Radical Reformation did compared to the first Reformation?

I would really be interested to know if the thought process and reasoning was as you stated here. I have been wondering the "why" of that.

I'm still working on all of this, please forgive me if I get any of it wrong.

Thank you for your post.

 

[Targaryen]

Thank you so much, GxG!

That is essentially what I was seeing, and guessing at, and I wondered if that was the case. I just didn't articulate it nearly so well.

That was my first observation, that the way in which CL quoted the Reformed position on Sola Scriptura does not appear to be so different from the Orthodox belief.

Whether or not either one played out according to the codified ideal wasn't really part of it (and I suspect it has more to do with the age of the Orthodox Church, and the reactions necessary in the Lutheran in cases where they didn't).

But yes, what you quoted here, agrees quite well as an outline with what I thought I was seeing. Thank you. That is most helpful.

Indeed, the goal of the first generation of reformers was to correct corruption and abuses of power that Rome in that time period was, at least in the Reformed understanding quite guilty of. however, there was always a part of the reformed tradition that balked at extreme changes in tradition as laid out both in Scripture and church history. Luther and Zwingli for instance did not see eye to eye, so much so Luther called Zwingli a swine fir for damnation if i recall correctly. The Anglican establishment may have like the justification by faith principle Luther set forth and was influenced in part by Calvin's work on predestination and election but Calvin's idea of presbyterian style polity and forgoing the AS, not so much.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Indeed, the goal of the first generation of reformers was to correct corruption and abuses of power that Rome in that time period was, at least in the Reformed understanding quite guilty of. however, there was always a part of the reformed tradition that balked at extreme changes in tradition as laid out both in Scripture and church history. Luther and Zwingli for instance did not see eye to eye, so much so Luther called Zwingli a swine fir for damnation if i recall correctly. The Anglican establishment may have like the justification by faith principle Luther set forth and was influenced in part by Calvin's work on predestination and election but Calvin's idea of presbyterian style polity and forgoing the AS, not so much.

Thanks!

Luther I've tried to understand. Zwingli much less so, but I can see where they might not get along well.

I had wondered about Calvin's influence on the Anglican Church (and some others). I understand what you are saying here. (Except the polity - I have a lot more studying to do on that really.)

Thanks again.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You're describing the later Protestants protesting against the early Protestants?

I think that seems to be what the Radical Reformation did compared to the first Reformation?

I would really be interested to know if the thought process and reasoning was as you stated here. I have been wondering the "why" of that.

I'm still working on all of this, please forgive me if I get any of it wrong.

Thank you for your post.

YW.

The Reformers and their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin develops the theme.

Acts 20 shows that the local congregation mainly through its elders is responsible directly to the Lord Himself, the risen head of the church. It makes a good study to look at Paul's charge to the Ephesian elders.

 

[~Anastasia~]

YW.

The Reformers and their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin develops the theme.

Acts 20 shows that the local congregation mainly through its elders is responsible directly to the Lord Himself, the risen head of the church. It makes a good study to look at Paul's charge to the Ephesian elders.

Thank you.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thank you so much, GxG!

That is essentially what I was seeing, and guessing at, and I wondered if that was the case. I just didn't articulate it nearly so well.

That was my first observation, that the way in which CL quoted the Reformed position on Sola Scriptura does not appear to be so different from the Orthodox belief.

Whether or not either one played out according to the codified ideal wasn't really part of it (and I suspect it has more to do with the age of the Orthodox Church, and the reactions necessary in the Lutheran in cases where they didn't).

But yes, what you quoted here, agrees quite well as an outline with what I thought I was seeing. Thank you. That is most helpful.

I'm glad that it was of benefit what was said It is always interesting when there's a theme in someone's mind and it seems like things are simply not coming together in expression as we like until others join in.

On the issue of Sola Scriptura and the ways the Orthodox saw it in comparison with the Reformers, part of understanding how Sola Scriptura was seen also requires one to see the ways that Sola Scriptura was seen from a POLITICAL perspective among the Reformers....as well as something that was later developed by future generations that echoed aspects of the traditions influenced by the politics of the time or the Traditions of the Church - with the main tradition of the Church that was meant to transform being that the Church is not bound to be unable to adapt to the times it lives in.

To bring the point home, I like how another individual noted it when showing the differing battles between Reformers - as seen here:

We pretty much all know that it was politically authorized by King James I. What I didn’t know was that it was designed as a way to combat the Geneva Bible, an English translation complete with margin notes, many of which encouraged the Reformed understanding that citizens can and should violently rise up against a tyrannical political leader. You can see why James didn’t like that very much. Banning the Geneva Bible didn’t work nearly effectively enough, so James authorized his own Bible version which would have no margins. Interestingly, it didn’t work – the Bible was a complete flop – until after the English Civil War, the failed attempt at Puritan governance, and the Restoration of the monarchy.

Important lesson from this: there is no neutral Bible interpretation or translation. ......attempting to establish religious dominance accomplishes the exact opposite of what it tries to accomplish. All of the respective groups involved in the religious wars believed that the best way to create a true Christian world was through force getting rid of those who disagreed.​

And as the author of the book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" noted:

For the historian, such cycles of review and renewal seem to be an integral part of Protestant identity….

The pressure of these changes has created a furious debate within sections of Protestantism, leading to a confrontation between two very different visions – one static, the other dynamic – of Protestant identity. On the one hand are Protestant traditionalists who hold that the essence of Protestantism can only be preserved by “freezing” defining moments in the past… For such traditionalists, fidelity to the past is the touchstone of authenticity and integrity.

On the other hand are those who argue that Protestantism is not, and never has been, defined in this way, but locates its identity in its constant self-examination in the light of the Bible and in its willingness to correct itself when it takes wrong turns or situations change. This second approach – often summarized in the slogan semper reforandum (“always being reformed”) – defines the distinctive identity of Protestantism as a method, not as any specific historical outcome of the application of that method.

Protestantism is thus seen as applying the Bible to new situations in which one may learn from past applications but is not obligated to repeat them….

By refusing to regard any past expression of Protestantism as normative, this approach has liberated the movement from its captivity to the cultural habits of early modern western Europe….

So what of the future of Protestantism? Those who base their answer on its fortunes in western Europe, its original heartlands, may offer a somewhat negative answer. But for those who have reflected on its remarkable advances elsewhere, such an answer is inadequate. Yes, the sun may set on a movement – but it is too easily forgotten that the sun rises again the next day.
​

We know that Orthodoxy has had many cases of cultural contexualization - understanding that it cannot be stuck within the confines of ONE cultural expression (which is different, of course, from the ethos that is present in the Church)....and in that sense, it had MUCH in common with the heart many had in the Reformation when it came to expression (even though we've had our own battles in the camp due to the battles that come with ethnic expression). Thekla said it best when noting the following:

For just as others in the Byzantine era contexualized the Faith as they understood it in their times so as to be better able to make disciples/convey truth ....in the same manner Jewish believers from a Hellenized background used Greek concepts/imagery to convey Biblical principles to others in the Greek world so that they'd understand).... so it is the case, IMHO, that there should never be such a focus on the past that there's never ability to understand (or be able) to know when change may be necessary.

Certainly form can become an idol (especially when we're 'good at it'. Artists wrestle with this, as practiced forms can lose their vitality.)

Part of the store of Tradition found in retaining older "forms" is the store of 'disposition' and 'mindset'. These are intangibles that belong typically to the realm of the Arts - music, poetry, movement, visual art. This can be seen in the use of various cultural 'conceits' to express the sam intangible in Orthodoxy's spread.

Those who are His are, despite any outward appearance.
We are charged with a responsibility and an ethos in the community/Church (one-mindedness, vigilance, bearing each other's burdens, forgiveness, instruction, etc.) and this we are to do our best to keep.

But to those who see Christianity as divided by denominations see by appearance, not what is spiritual. For to the extent that we partake of the body and blood of Christ wherever and whoever we are, we are "at the same table". Paul writes, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor 10: 16-17) and as is recorded in the Didache, "As this broken bread scattered on the mountains was gathered and became one, so too, may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For glory and power are yours through Jesus Christ for ever”.

Denominations may seem a tragic division, but also are a sorting into "one-minded" ... those in each particular local community can and do confess one confession and understanding of this confession.

This one-mindedness etc. is our responsibility; who belongs to Him is God's doing and knowledge. We do our best to do our part, what we are charged with, but the rest is up to God. (And we are not to usurp what is God's, but to remain in obedience to Him).

We cannot pretend to know all who are saved, and fed, by God. What we can know is that all who He will save, who belong to Him, He feeds ...

So in this sense, just as all who partake of the Eucharist divided geographically and by time are all partaking at the same table, no 'physical' appearance can overturn nor define who is at that table. They are all one ...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

History with comical interludes at it's best. Good reading of the posts above

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks!

Luther I've tried to understand. Zwingli much less so, but I can see where they might not get along well.

I had wondered about Calvin's influence on the Anglican Church (and some others).

There was a lot present (as it concerns Calvin's influence on other generations and leaders) as seen in the Puritans and what occurred with them.

Puritans when they came over (at least in certain camps) when they initially came over and later felt it was God's calling for them to treat Native Americans and Blacks in negative ways because of God backing it (even though other Puritans felt otherwise ) - more shared in Utopian Promise as well as Perry Miller's "Errand into the Wilderness" alongside Puritans | Sects and Violence in the Ancient World. ). THE Puritans of Massachusetts Bay were not driven out of England since many of their brethren stayed in England voluntarily - AND they had a desire to later rule England but felt they would only be invited back if showing how their experiment - based on the ideology made by Calvin (on their understanding of Sola Scriptura) would be proven true and their actions superior.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

YW.

The Reformers and their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin develops the theme.

That book was a very intense read - especially when considering how the Radical Reformers were treated by the other Reformers on the basis of Sola Scriptura, with both sides feeling they lined up with the example of the early Church.

 

[Albion]

What many of the Reformers also wanted to do was to take the RCC's Medieval canon law and scholastic philosophical styles of theology and impose them on local congregations that at first thought they were being true to the Bible alone.

What the man and woman in the pew had to realize was that their religious leaders, as well as being rhetorically Protestant, wanted themselves to fill the vacuum left by Roman authority systems.

Isn't that something like accusing Democracy of being nothing but a conspiracy to fill "the vacuum" left from the good ol' days when there was absolute Monarchism?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hmmmm. You have a point. The intent at the same time was to discard certain traditions, was it not? Such as indulgences, particularly?

The Lutherans probably know more about this than anyone else. But I'm interested.

The reforms which were carried out among the churches of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, and other territorial signatories to the Augsburg Confession are detailed in that Confession in Articles XXII-XVIII.

These are:

XXII: Reception of wine as well as bread in the sacrament of the altar.
XXIII: Marriage of priests.
XXIV: Abolition of endowed private Masses (and with it the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass).
XXV: Introduction of an absolute word of absolution in the sacrament of confession, and the abolition of an absolute requirement for total enumeration of sins and the assignment of penance as a proper part of the rite.
XXVI: Abolition of teaching that humans traditions, like participation in certain holy days and fasts, can merit special grace (such practices, however, can discipline and mortify the flesh and are to be retained for that reason).
XXVII: The possibility of release from monastic vows.
XXVIII: Reform under princes apart from bishops loyal to Rome (actively engaged in persecution of Lutheran teaching), and the limitation of episcopal authority.

As it so happens, these were originally going to be the only articles presented by the reforming princes at Augsburg to Emperor Charles V (known as the Schwabach Articles). But they were attached to the earlier Torgau Articles (now Augsburg I-XXI) in order that they would present a more thorough confession of faith rather than than just a report on reform.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I understand this leaves leeway for pious thought and actions that are not promoted, but neither are they prohibited, in Scripture?

Would a problem come in if the Church began (or always had) required something that was not a part of Scripture?

Thank you.

For Lutherans it would depend on what "required" means. Is it required for the sake of harmony, good order, and positive relations between churches? Then we're all for it. Is it required for salvation? Then it is an unnecessary burden on consciences, and should be rejected not only as a requirement, but should be rejected until it no longer bears the stigma of a conscience-burdening requirement.

This latter part of the dynamic- rejecting conscience-burdening requirements even if they are neutral as a way to free consciences- goes a long way toward explaining why it has taken so long for the Lutheran church to fully reclaimed the liturgical and ecclesiastical heritage both of ancient catholic orthodoxy and of our more immediate mother church, Latin Catholicism. In the sixteenth century Lutherans were told that they must practice the liturgy completely and totally in conformity to the Latin Rite (the various stipulations of the peace treaties connected to the War of the Schmalkaldic League). As a result, the reformers outright stopped practicing even those practices that aren't contrary to Scripture (adiaphora) under the banner "nothing is adiaphora when the gospel is at stake."

Now that episcopal governance, use of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in liturgy, the inclusion of the full text of the ancient rites of the liturgy (including such elements normally missing from Lutheran liturgies like the epiclesis, anamnesis, and mysterium fide), and the use of liturgical items like vestments, bells, candles, censors and incense, and aspergilla are no longer associated with meriting grace or being an absolutely true church, these have been steadily reintroduced over the past three hundred years. Some still haven't found wide acceptance (the last two in particular), but I think that is largely because Lutherans have forgotten that our situation is an emergency separate from the mother church, not a basically Protestant situation wherein our present liturgical uses are simply matters of preference (high church vs. low church.

I also, with that in mind, think it's time to reintroduce monasticism, pilgrimage, and various motifications of the flesh (fasting, etc.) as vibrant forces in the church- again, not as means to merit grace, but as ways to discipline and kill the Old Adam within us. Salvation may not be a linear process in Lutheranism (as in Orthodoxy or Catholicism), but it is a daily or cyclical process of dying and rising.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The reforms which were carried out among the churches of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, and other territorial signatories to the Augsburg Confession are detailed in that Confession in Articles XXII-XVIII.

These are:

XXII: Reception of wine as well as bread in the sacrament of the altar.
XXIII: Marriage of priests.
XXIV: Abolition of endowed private Masses (and with it the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass).
XXV: Introduction of an absolute word of absolution in the sacrament of confession, and the abolition of an absolute requirement for total enumeration of sins and the assignment of penance as a proper part of the rite.
XXVI: Abolition of teaching that humans traditions, like participation in certain holy days and fasts, can merit special grace (such practices, however, can discipline and mortify the flesh and are to be retained for that reason).
XXVII: The possibility of release from monastic vows.
XXVIII: Reform under princes apart from bishops loyal to Rome (actively engaged in persecution of Lutheran teaching), and the limitation of episcopal authority.

As it so happens, these were originally going to be the only articles presented by the reforming princes at Augsburg to Emperor Charles V (known as the Schwabach Articles). But they were attached to the earlier Torgau Articles (now Augsburg I-XXI) in order that they would present a more thorough confession of faith rather than than just a report on reform.

In my parish church XXII is the norm, our archbishop and his predecessor and probably one or two before that published, within the diocese, a decree authorising it. I think it was done in the 1970s, after the ordinary form of the mass was reformed. I'll check and see if I can get a precise date.

XXIII is still not permitted in the Roman rite.

XXIV is likely to be rare; it may not happen in my archdiocese at all, but I am not sure.

XXV is a little unclear, the normal form for the rite of confession includes the declaration that one's sins are forgiven, spoken in the name of Christ. Penances are still a part of the rite.

XXVI Catholics believe that there is merit in participation in various pilgrimages and prayers after a good confession is made.

XXVII my parish priest was realised from his order to become a diocesan priest, so release is possible.

XXVIII In Australia the state (government either at a federal level or a state level) doesn't try to make rules for the church ...

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, I'm going to give in to temptation. And probably derail my own thread, LOL. Sometimes I feel as though I have theological ADD, but so many things interest me, and I'm always finding I don't know and can't understand fully until I ask more questions.

I see MC has begun addressing this from the Catholic perspective of current practices, at least local to his parish. I'd still be interested in further info, either clarifying what these practices mean, or how they are practiced today.

The reforms which were carried out among the churches of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, and other territorial signatories to the Augsburg Confession are detailed in that Confession in Articles XXII-XVIII.

These are:

XXII: Reception of wine as well as bread in the sacrament of the altar.

I think this is self-explanatory. I've been told most parishes allow either or both now?

XXIII: Marriage of priests.

Again self-explanatory. And still forbidden across the board afaik.

XXIV: Abolition of endowed private Masses (and with it the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass).

What is the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass? I think I may know?

An endowed private Mass would be someone paying to have their own Mass? As in so they can participate in the Eucharist privately? Or I have heard something about Masses being dedicated to someone somehow? I don't really understand this part?

XXV: Introduction of an absolute word of absolution in the sacrament of confession, and the abolition of an absolute requirement for total enumeration of sins and the assignment of penance as a proper part of the rite.

I don't understand - what would be not an absolute word of absolution? Partial or conditional or refused?

As far as the requirement of the total enumeration of sins - is that speaking to something someone forgot to mention? Or something they wish to deliberately withhold?

I'm assuming then that this means penance is required and part of absolution, and I would guess absolution is probably dependent on the act of penance being completed?

Would Lutherans then object if penance was sometimes required, if it seemed necessary for the person's spiritual health and related to that particular sin? Would the answer depend on whether or not it was a requirement for absolution?

XXVI: Abolition of teaching that humans traditions, like participation in certain holy days and fasts, can merit special grace (such practices, however, can discipline and mortify the flesh and are to be retained for that reason).

I guess I'm not exactly completely clear on the "special grace" part. I have heard comments that speak about quantifying grace (Do x so many times and you will receive y favor?). We also in very different kinds of churches speak of being "blessed" which is not quantifiable, not guaranteed, but I guess just "happens" when some practices are carried out. Are either of these kinds of things what is being talked about here?

XXVII: The possibility of release from monastic vows.

I read MC's comment about a priest being released to become a different sort of priest. Does this mean though that generally it is not possible for monks, priests, or others to be released? I'm guessing (since people can do what they want) that if a person chose to leave without being released, there would be spiritual consequences then?

XXVIII: Reform under princes apart from bishops loyal to Rome (actively engaged in persecution of Lutheran teaching), and the limitation of episcopal authority.

I still don't know much about political history of the Church, and probably need to push that back for now.


Thanks for the post, GCC. And I appreciate answers on these questions from anyone who has any input. Thanks very much!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

XXVIII In Australia the state (government either at a federal level or a state level) doesn't try to make rules for the church ...

Yeah, well, the state was heavily involved in implementing church policy on both sides of the line back in the day.

 

[Albion]

I see your point. But I am not being purposely deceptive or any such thing. What I am looking for is the way any Church interprets Scripture

Well, that doesn't have much to do with tradition at all, except that the church of denomination X are most likely going to see it the way that that denomination has always interpreted the Bible...or else it would be affiliated with some other denomination instead.

at least that was my point in this particular dialogue. If you thought I meant something else, then my words might be implying something different to you than I meant.

Yes, I think so. I thought it was about the difference between Sola Scriptura and (Holy) Tradition.

This is really the key question. And the answer is going to vary, depending on which belief, which Church, and so on. I'm very interested in those answers. Sometimes they may be obvious, and sometimes I may not know where they came from.

I wish EVERYone would ask themselves these questions about all their beliefs.

In the first century Church, particularly the very earliest years, I think everything that was believed and everything that was done was necessarily by Tradition (perhaps carried over from Jewish temple worship?

It certainly was not. Most of the Bible was available , including most of the New Testament, unless you are referring to the first decade or so after Pentecost when, best we can tell, only the rudiments of the religion (Christ is savior; he is coming again; and the world will end) were active.

For ourselves, many centuries later ... some of our Churches already have their Traditions, their interpretations, and of course their Scripture in place. Presumably they already have a typical way of interacting with Scripture.

For some though, there are traditional interpretations, informed by (what?). Older Tradition? A rejection of that tradition, replaced with something else? (Such as the anti-sacramentalism?) They may have prescribed ways of dealing with Scripture and interpreting it as well. (In my experience at least, they actually have usually had quite a lot to say here.)

I see that we're still struggling to separate Tradition from traditions and traditionalism. Sola Scriptura churches actually are not churches that base their beliefs on something akin to the way the Catholic churches do it.

I guess that I 've failed to explain adequately the fact that to do something in a traditional way does not mean that it's being done in accordance with "Tradition."

The Protestant idea is not to rely upon traditions to define doctrine but the other churches do base their beliefs on legend, custom, and opinion (in part) and only choose to CALL IT "Tradition." They might just as well have called it Sacred Hearsay and then we wouldn't be trying to keep traditions that do not define doctrine separate from that other methodology which men have merely chosen to stick the word "Tradition" on.

And for some, yes, the Holy Spirit is thought to be leading into new Truth.

Such as? A new slant on scripture wouldn't qualify, since it would still be based on Scripture and those smaller, and more recent churches that sometimes admit of ongoing prophesy are simply on the fringe of Protestantism for having altered the principle of Sola Scriptura. In fact, that is a cause for being labeled a cult.

Whether you call it tradition or not, it is true that they pass something down that affects how they interact with Scripture.

"Interact with Scripture?" Well then, you are saying that they base it upon Scripture unlike the RC and EO approach.