LINK

Like I said in another thread that started treading into these waters, if you're paying attention, you must choose who you believe, with hopefully some divine guidance. Then we're all Methodists.

Quote:

---

Thus we come to the fault line that has opened up under the Franciscan papacy: Faced with a liberalizing pope, conservatives in the church are arguing that there is an objectively discernible body of divinely revealed teachings over which the church has no authority and which it is literally unable to alter.

Oddly enough, the relationship between "divine law" and ecclesial authority articulated by these conservatives in the American church is, to my eyes, strikingly similar to the relationship between Scripture and ecclesial authority as defined by the Reformation.[url=https://mereorthodoxy.com/traditionalist-catholics-protestants/#easy-footnote-bottom-1-130422][/url]

---

...

Quote:

---

Rather, I am arguing that the current maneuverings amongst conservative Catholics bear a striking resemblance to Protestantism precisely because they are confronting the same problem that vexed the first Protestants: What do you do when the institutional church seems to be endorsing views that contradict what you understand orthodoxy to be? Not only that, they are addressing the problem with a strikingly similar answer: You appeal to a divine law that is able to be discerned independent of the authority of the papacy and which is binding for everyone, including bishops. Thus the much cited problem of private judgment is merely a fact to be confronted and navigated rather than an inherent theological problem from which we must be rescued.

---

The problem with this is that both sides are almost entirely contained within a certain set of presuppositions. These emphasize rationalism and belief that is logical and to some degree certain. Confessions and credal statements are logical or philosophical structures, built on facts and provable assertions. So it becomes a view of - what are the facts? And what is the best logical framework built on these facts? Scripture + reason, or magisterium + reason.

The problem is both questions have contentious answers. You see this post is talking about "divine law" or "scripture". It is an external appeal and one person's facts are another person's opinion. Then on top of that even if we agree on the first, the second becomes contentious because, frankly, very few of these things are provable or testable.

Both sides agree that the answer, whatever it may be, should have a certain degree of intellectual certitude in order to be believable. For Protestants this comes from personal interpretation, just like Luther said to Eck at Leipzig - "unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason..." But where are we promised the plain reason is what convicts us? For Roman Catholics in manifests in their extremely detailed catechism, legalistic quantifiable view of sins, and probably most clearly in the epistemological certainty of papal infallibility. But where are we promised that the Pope or anyone other human will teach us inerrantly?

Notice here that none of this presupposes or even in some way allows for an active, guiding, leading, presiding role for the Holy Spirit in the Church. Instead truth is a static thing, handed down in some discoverable-yet-immutable format. Notice also there is actually no need for experience or even the Holy Spirit to have "all the truth". You only need to assent to what is taught in the various confessions or decrees.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Notice here that none of this presupposes or even in some way allows for an active, guiding, leading, presiding role for the Holy Spirit in the Church. Instead truth is a static thing, handed down in some discoverable-yet-immutable format. Notice also there is actually no need for experience or even the Holy Spirit to have "all the truth". You only need to assent to what is taught in the various confessions or decrees.

---

Good points. There is though, an acknowledgement in places of, "We don't know, you'll have to take it up with Him" which I personally interpreted (though in no way have I been formally taught this, so I could be in error) as a need for trust in the Holy Spirit.

People way smarter than us have been at this for centuries to little avail as to a "resolution", I keep reading, trying to discern things and pray that The Spirit keeps me pointed in the right direction.

Sorry if that came off as personal criticism - it wasn't meant to. It's also critique of myself, I tend to be over-intellectual in my approach. My godfather reminds me sometimes that the wise men showed up last, not first. But I suppose at least they showed up.

Which sort of dovetails into the idea that this is a logical or rigorous thing. It sort of makes you wonder what the hope of salvation is for those with mental disabilities or who simply aren't all that intelligent. Are they somehow spiritually diminished or defective because they can't grapple with logic or reason? Is that really what the scriptures lead us to believe? On the other hand the Lord speaks of out of the mouth of infants and the faith of children, which is certainly a different kind of image.

I think as long as the focus is on the intellectual rigor, people will never come to agreement. You just can't do it, that's reliant on us to fix ourselves by our own power - because surely the intellect is truly ours and subject to our will as much as our hands or feet are. The scriptures and the fathers talk about the need for a cleansed intellect, purity to see, humility and obedience which leads to lowliness of heart and self-accusation. This kind of thing presupposes an active spiritual life, struggle and force, before arriving at knowledge.

I think the entire process has been backwards. The Reformation sought the pure church whether through doctrinal or confessional purity, source purity, or pure discipline. On the other hand, it seems to me that the pure Church is the source of purity, not the result. The model has always been to "steadfastly continue in the teaching of the Apostles, and the Communion, and in the prayers."

It may be worth noting for the average reader that intellect here isn't referring only to the discursive, reasoning mind, but the organ with which God is perceived, the eye of the soul, and it is located in the heart. Quite different from western thinking.

Yes! The patristic use of nous may be the most difficult concept to grasp as a convert from the western tradition, which should give us pause when we consider its use in scripture. What about the striking - "the peace of God surpassing all understanding (nous) will guard your hearts and minds (nous) in Christ Jesus"?

Or its use in Titus 1:5, "both the mind (nous) and conscience" That distinction is extremely difficult for us to parse!

We see the Lord fully opening peoples minds (nous) to understand or grasp the Scriptures on the road to Emmaus.

Or St Paul famously speaking of a metamorphosis by the renewing of the mind (nous) in Romans 12. This same renewing we see is the work of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5. That renewal is what is producing for us an eternal weight of glory (2 Cor 4:17), and our self is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of our Creator (Colossians 3:10).

So you see, the knowledge is what causes our renewal as process, it is what transforms us, and our minds are guarded by the peace which is greater than understanding. The mind is a malleable, active, process-oriented concept in the scriptures.

I realized that I made this confusing with my opening sentence. The fathers typically write of nous where scripture speaks of heart or soul, and use dianoia for intellect and logos for speech and reason. Some use nous for attention or focus. As with many things the precision of the language used in theology increased over the centuries. The fathers wrote carefully about mind, heart, and soul.

One way to describe the patristic sense of the nous that it is the sensory or interactive capacity of the soul as the intellect is the interactive capacity of the mind. We perceive the created or material order with our intellect and reasoning, but we perceive God with something beyond this. St Maximos called this the capacity for supranonknowing, to know God who is supranonknowable, ie, above and beyond knowing or non-knowing.

It is interesting to consider that when St Augustine examined this kind of divine capacity - perhaps because separated from the Eastern linguistic tradition - he did so in terms of A kind of divine reasoning that was from God. He made great contributions to math and music on these terms, actually (the concept of irrational numbers and human interpretation of music beyond sense perception and memory). t is easy to suggest he was describing the same thing at St Maximos, being enlightened with experience of God, but I think this shows some of the differences in *how* people expressed these things.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Both sides agree that the answer, whatever it may be, should have a certain degree of intellectual certitude in order to be believable. For Protestants this comes from personal interpretation, just like Luther said to Eck at Leipzig - "unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason..." But where are we promised the plain reason is what convicts us? For Roman Catholics in manifests in their extremely detailed catechism, legalistic quantifiable view of sins, and probably most clearly in the epistemological certainty of papal infallibility. But where are we promised that the Pope or anyone other human will teach us inerrantly?

Notice here that none of this presupposes or even in some way allows for an active, guiding, leading, presiding role for the Holy Spirit in the Church. Instead truth is a static thing, handed down in some discoverable-yet-immutable format. Notice also there is actually no need for experience or even the Holy Spirit to have "all the truth". You only need to assent to what is taught in the various confessions or decrees.

---

This is a bit of a stretch.

Luther's point, that he would beg and plead for, was simply for Rome to use Scripture to make their case at any point. We have to remember that at this point, most Priest's couldn't read. So Rome wasn't teaching Scripture. They were teaching what the Pope told them. Luther's constant frustration with Rome was that they could not open Scriptures.

This is why the Augsburg Confession was written. It was supposed to be a "universal confession" for the Christian Faith that was tied into Scripture. This was to avoid the errors that were in Rome and elsewhere.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting progressive revelation?

Luther didn't randomly say that. He said it to Eck in the context of a debate, a debate in which Eck (rightly) pointed out that all heretics also appeal to scripture, and that Luther saying he needed to be convinced by scripture and reason more or less put his (Luther's) own understanding of scripture as the standard of faith. A personal standard. There was plenty of scripture offered formally. And it's an error, I think, to speak about what a common priest may or may not confess. A common priest doesn't speak for Rome today or then - their errors are their own, and I think we should at least take Rome at their word. The problem was Luther wasn't arguing with common priests. He was arguing with cardinals and papal legates who were certainly literate and well versed in scripture. And of course later with other Reformers who knew scripture and didn't agree with him, like some Reformed who would later say that Lutherans weren't even Christians.

Anyway, the whole supposition here is that the universal confession is supposed to be tied to scripture as the ultimate criterion. It isnt, and nowhere in the Bible does it say this. The Bible does say, however that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and this of course is because the Church is the body of Christ and He is the Truth. Further there is an implicit agreement on both sides that the confession has to be rationally grasped. Everyone in the magisterial reformation was sincerely working for doctrinal and theological precision and clarity.

///

No, not saying continuing revelation. Saying that memorizing the whole scripture and all orthodox creeds and knowing dogma and doctrine and all patristics doesn't mean you know God at all. I'm saying that knowing the right formula and belief doesn't mean you know Him, any more than knowing every fact there is to know about Paris is not comparable to going and standing on the Ile de la Cite. At Maximos talks about grasping scripture and losing Christ the way Potiphar's wife grabbed Joseph's robe but not Joseph. Orthodox faith and knowledge begins and in some way ends in worship. The symbol of faith isn't the faith, it implies it. All orthodox theology isn't true, it just guards from error. The truth is ineffable and only experiential, completely beyond rational definition and dogmatics. So knowing, even really 100% intellectually correct knowing, falls short. And I suppose similarly that experience of God is possible even with no intellectual training, background, expression, etc.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The truth is ineffable and only experiential, completely beyond rational definition and dogmatics. So knowing, even really 100% intellectually correct knowing, falls short. And I suppose similarly that experience of God is possible even with no intellectual training, background, expression, etc.

---

I like this. We're all at the mercy of our perceptions (intellectual or otherwise) unless we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transcend them and lead us on the right path. Praying for that is my strategy, anyway. I don't think the intellectual curiosity will ever stop, and I'm not coming up with novel questions by any means, but there is something to nurturing the individual's unique engagement with the Holy Spirit without pretending that there is a separate truth out there for each of us. I do struggle with reconciling between my unique thoughts, perceptions, etc., and the unknowable infinite God, but that's when I usually ask Him to do His will with me and pray for mercy.

I've heard it speculated alternate universe style, "what if, instead of the Reformation, Luther kicked off a Roman Catholic Reformation and ended up creating his own order within the RCC?" That sounds all rather more copasetic than what transpired, and perhaps would lead to fewer denominations vying for theological and philosophical bragging rights, but at the end of the day, would we be in a materially different place with God? I would argue no, and it circles back to the thrust of the OP link.

Now, here we are in 2019, arguably with submission to the hierarchy of the Magesterium being the only prima facie doctrine of affiliation within the RCC, with a noisy contingent of traditionalists trying to reconcile that with confusion in the officially licensed doctrinal blocking and tackling. Go from one parish/diocese to another today, and the engaged laity could plausibly see more heterodoxy than you would from Luther to a priest from the same seminary that remained loyal to Rome.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sorry if that came off as personal criticism - it wasn't meant to. It's also critique of myself, I tend to be over-intellectual in my approach. My godfather reminds me sometimes that the wise men showed up last, not first. But I suppose at least they showed up.

---

I didn't take it as such, as I mentioned above, I don't think the intellectual curiosity will stop, and I recognize that I am on well travelled ground that's not likely to solve much of anything outside of my own head, though ideally, it may serve to order my thinking the way He wants it.

Sorry for not responding sooner. Sick boys and work take up too much time right now.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're Eck comment is from a different debate 2 years prior to the quote you first referenced. This second quote is from 1519 at a debate in Leipzig.

The first quote was at the Diet of Worms in 1521.

Interestingly, Luther was not excommunicated until after Diet and he remained a Roman Catholic for 2 more years after the quote.

However, going back to the first quote, context still matters. This is a post from CPH on the Diet:

CPH Article

Quote:

---

Luther was asked once more to acknowledge that the books on the table in front of him were his and to say whether he recanted what he had written in them. He responded in a calm, measured, and diplomatic way, excusing his lack of courtly elegance since he was but a monk accustomed to living in relative seclusion and not well versed in the ways of formal address and gestures before such high-ranking officials. He said that he had to this point wanted merely to honor God with his writing and teach the truths of God's Word to the people. The books before him contained various types of writings: some devotional in nature, some simply laying forth common piety and morals that everyone would agree with, and, yes, some containing language that was too sharp, and he apologized for exceeding the bounds of common civility at times. But some of his writings contained assertions about common public error that violated the very Gospel itself, and therefore he could not recant of those things, for to do so would permit tyranny and godlessness in the Church.

Luther rose to a crescendo in his remarks and asserted that only the clear testimony of Scripture should determine matters of such gravity in the Church. Nothing else would do. But if anyone would demonstrate to him where he had erred in his interpretation of Scripture, he would himself burn any of his books with any such errors in them.

---

Context matters

////////////////////

Quote:

---

And of course later with other Reformers who knew scripture and didn't agree with him, like some Reformed who would later say that Lutherans weren't even Christians.

---

This was the fashionable thing to do then and not particularly controversial.

Rome also declared everyone who did not bow to the Pope (Included the Orthodox) to be anathema. Would need to double check Fr Damick's book to make sure I have that right, but pretty sure this aligns with what he wrote.

/////////////////

Quote:

---

No, not saying continuing revelation. Saying that memorizing the whole scripture and all orthodox creeds and knowing dogma and doctrine and all patristics doesn't mean you know God at all. I'm saying that knowing the right formula and belief doesn't mean you know Him, any more than knowing every fact there is to know about Paris is not comparable to going and standing on the Ile de la Cite

---

What you describe here is the freedom that came from the Reformation, not something that was opposed.

For the Reformers (and specifically Lutherans), our salvation is assured through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not in a once saved always saved fashion, but through the endurance of Faith.

And that means we are free. Free from the worries that our works are good enough or that we've done enough. Jesus blood is enough.

That does not mean we are free to sin, Paul makes that clear.

But we are free to fall short, as Paul also says.

We are free to love God and love our Neighbors.

We are free to pursue the vocation that God has for us, whether that be a doctor, teacher, engineer, etc.

That freedom did not exist under Rome.

Eh, yeah you're right. One too many Ecks. other-Eck pointed out that he was setting himself up as judge over scripture, asked how he could assume he was the only one who correctly understood scripture, then he asked for Luther's "candid without horns" answer.

Anyway the point remains. It is I think incorrect to say that Rome never answered him with scripture at any point. And to be fair Luther didn't argue strictly or even mostly from scripture either - which is kind of interesting. Many times at Leipzig Luther invokes the fathers, or history, not scripture. I really think the true essence Luther'a dispute is one of dueling interpretations. In this respect I think it's frequently mischaracterized.

///

It doesn't matter if it's fashionable. The point is you've got the magisterial reformers breaking communion with each other right from the start. Is certainly not a vote for all you need is scripture and plain reason to arrive at consensus.

///

Quote:

---

What you describe here is the freedom that came from the Reformation, not something that was opposed.

---

???

What I'm describing is that reason is not how we come to faith. And this doesn't have anything to do with Rome.

Christian theology can't simply be reactionary to Rome.

Quote:

---

Anyway the point remains. It is I think incorrect to say that Rome never answered him with scripture at any point. And to be fair Luther didn't argue strictly or even mostly from scripture either - which is kind of interesting.

---

Lutheran's then and now have been super comfortable quoting the Church Father's. Chemnitz in particular likely quotes the Father's more than anybody else in his books. I tried copying down the quotes for book 1 of his rebuttal to the Council of Trent and hit 14 pages before I stopped.

But the Diet wasn't about Rome wanting to have a discussion.

As the article I posted says, they put all of Luther's book on a table and told him to renounce them, not because they were theologically incorrect, but simply because Rome said so.

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter if it's fashionable. The point is you've got the magisterial reformers breaking communion with each other right from the start. Is certainly not a vote for all you need is scripture and plain reason to arrive at consensus.

---

People were breaking away from the church all the time. it's not like all of a sudden the Church split with the Reformation.

But the splits between the Reformed and Lutherans is interesting. They met in Marburg and essentially agreed they were in fellowship on everything, but one thing.

The one thing they disagreed with was the real presence of body and blood.

Kind of reasonable for a split right?

Quote:

---

What I'm describing is that reason is not how we come to faith. And this doesn't have anything to do with Rome.

Christian theology can't simply be reactionary to Rome.

---

It's not about reacting to Rome. Rome had forgotten this.

It was about re-finding and re-teaching that we are called to actually live out our faith.

I guess what I was saying, if you read what transcripts there are of Leipzig, neither one used much scripture.

Discussion time was at Leipzig and with Cajetan. By the time Worms came around it wasn't discussion time any more. Rome called him a heretic for some of his theses. The other-Eck wasn't there to debate, he was told strictly to get either recant or not. Burning papal bulls tended to engender that kind of reaction.

///

It seems like you're implying that the Reformation wasn't a sea change in terms of schism. I don't think that's right.

And I do think it is *incredibly significant* that magisterial reformers, who all approached the biggest questions of their day the same way - scripture and reason - couldn't come to terms right from the start! That's not reasonable at all. That's a problem.