Makes sense to me. Got any recommendations for references that more or less split things up that way?

Zobel said:

---

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone. My old handle had my year and outfit, which narrowed things down pretty clearly. Had some goobers PM me less than nice things and I figured you know, I don't make it a real secret who I am but I dont want to be casually doxxed by some rando.

---

Bad bull. Was that over all the Covid stuff?

If you go back to the Great Schism St Photios more or less said nothing matters until you fix the filioque, and if you fix the filioque everything else can be worked out.

Similarly the patriarch of Alexandria, Peter, in June of 1054 said:

Quote:

---

Now, we have surveyed the Roman errors which you enumerated. Some of them seem abominable and should be fled; others are curable; still others can be overlooked.

...But an evil, even the evilest of evils, is their addition to the creed, thus: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

...And if the evangelist (John) has so exceedingly clearly declared this (i.e., that the Spirit proceeds from the Father), what orthodox person will dare or will be able to add to or to subtract from it? For when it concerns something which the divine Scripture clearly declares, it is not necessary to take a vote, but only to follow.

...Nor do we accept the other addition which they have made, namely: "One holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ, in the glory of God the Father, through the Holy Spirit", although it is possible that if we understood it piously it would do no harm to right faith....For it is good that we, looking always to good will, should consent always to peace and brotherly love, especially so long as neither God nor the faith is in danger. For they are our brothers, even if it happens that, through rusticity and lack of education, they have frequently fallen from what is seemly, following their own will. We do not demand the same accuracy in barbarous peoples as we demand among those who have been brought up in doctrine. For it is a great thing if only the life-giving Trinity is preached correctly among them, and the mystery of the economy of the incarnation is in agreement with our doctrine.

For regarding abstaining for strangled meat, the book of the Acts of the Apostles speaks clearly, where James, the brother of the Lord, appears, saying, "From the beginning all his deeds are known to God. So I judge that we ought not to trouble unduly those among the gentiles who have turned to God, but to write to them to abstain from meat offered to idols, from unchastity, from what is strangled, and from blood." And I have never been persuaded that the pope and the other bishops lack awareness of such a book, since they have accurate knowledge of the arrangement of the other Scriptures, and so why would they neglect and accept such a transgression? But you will find, both within the city and without, many who eat pigs' blood. And further evidence of this are the sausages filled with pigs' blood set forth among the offerings of taverners.

But see, most honorable lord, how, while we overlook or even allow many things which our people do wrongly, we babble about the more suitable thing and meddle in the affairs of others. Shall I say more? Now don't get upset. In the most righteous monastery of Studios, deacons are girded, doing something which does not follow ecclesiastical tradition. And consider, how, after much labor and in spite of much zeal, you have not been able to excise such a peculiar custom. And if we cannot prevail against those under us, how can we turn that proud and haughty race away from their own customs? For it is enough, as I said, if the divine is preached correctly among them, and if he is praised and glorified in accordance with the word of truth and in common with us.

For Your Holiness does well and acts in a way pleasing to God when you resist the addition to the holy creed and their refusal to communicate with the gifts sanctified by a married priest. And do not ever stop resisting this and persuading them from the holy Scriptures and from the recorded evangelical preaching, until you have them in agreement with the truth and praising the same doctrine as us regarding the divine procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. But I think the other things (especially since most of them are false) should be overlooked, since the word of truth is not at all harmed by them. For we should not readily be persuaded by vain accusations, nor believe in our own suspicions, and we should not change the things which are established and right.

...As for me, I will make my opinion clear: if ever they would correct the addition to the holy creed, I would demand nothing else, leaving as a matter of indifference, along with all the other matters, even their fault regarding the unleavened bread.

---

I note the big difference on the issue of sausages and blood between Patriarch Peter and Luther. It seems to me the same as the attitude of the Pharisees on divorce and the law. Rather than accept that we have broken with canon in some respects, or that we fall short, there is an attempt to rationalize, or exclude.

Fix the creed. Everything else comes from there (for Rome, this means fixing papal primacy first, but whatever).

Haha, yeah. Oh well.

Ramblin_ag02 gave a pretty sufficient response to you, but I'll add some more in as well.

Quote:

---

The conclusion you think I've drawn is not the point I'm making. It's quite obvious they draw heavily from the fathers, and the councils as well. What they do not do is consider them inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Reformers, and most modern protestants, freely accept or reject things based on their reading of the scripture, and it is precisely because they have put a hierarchy of authority in place with scripture at the top.

There is an implicit assumption that the reason this is correct is because the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There is also an implicit conclusion that tradition, the fathers, and the councils are not. Otherwise how could they be subordinate? Can the Holy Spirit be subordinate to itself? Inspiring sometimes good things and sometimes bad?

It is this underlying attitude - that the working or inspiration (literally to breathe or blow into - the in-breathing of the Holy breath, the pneuma of God) of the Holy Spirit is limited to scripture - which is revealing.

---

This is just you inserting your feelings into the discussion. It's not true.

First you through out a claim that you don't actually provide support for. What's the proof they don't consider the Fathers/Councils inspired? What's your definition of what makes a statement inspired?

Second, you do the same thing Roman Catholics do. Move the goals posts by avoiding specifics and just generally say "Well most protestants" or "some protestants" do this or that and so it's all crazy. This after we've been talking specific about Luther and even more specifically about a single book.

Third, the implicit conclusion you draw around traditions, fathers and councils is just wrong. Unless you're now saying that all councils, including the Council of Florence are now infallibly correct? Or do you really just mean that if the Orthodox determine it to be "from the Holy Spirit" then it's correct, but if they don't then it can be discarded. One might notice that you would do the exact same thing you accuse the Reformers of doing.

Finally, the last statement is just not true nor is it claimed to be true. The Holy Spirit clearly works through the Fathers and us today. Lutheran's in particular emphasize vocation as our witness to the world.

Quote:

---

You say it's an opinion, but not grounded in truth. Explain, then, why the witness of the Church is reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't inspired scripture but isn't reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't inspired praxis?

Of course it is no surprise that those who would deny one (tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit) would also approach the others with a similar attitude (the canon is subject to review).

The bottom line is somewhat tautological. The witness of the Church is inspired, because the Church is the body of Christ and is led personally by the Spirit. Therefore the scriptures which are authoritative are those the Church recognizes as authoritative. The praxis, worship, dogma, and teachings which are authoritative are those the Church recognizes as authoritative. Inspiration and authority have the same root, which is the Holy Spirit, as a witness to Christ. But this tautological standard is far from useless. "Everywhere, always, by all" is a powerful tool for us to know what is reliable - and what isn't.

---

This just continues to be abstract and devoid of the historical accuracy.

Lutherans did not want to throw out all tradition. They wouldn't have been called Reformers had they wanted to do that. As mentioned, The original Augsburg Confession was just the "Abuses Corrected."

However, to claim that we must accept a tradition as "from the Holy Spirit" simply because the Church claims it to be is also equally as insane. Lets take one of the primary points of the Reformation...Indulgences. Under your logic, this was a tradition of the Church and must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet even Rome relented and modified/curbed this "tradition."

The rest is you attempting to make a distinction that doesn't actually exist.

Quote:

---

What's the proof they don't consider the Fathers/Councils inspired? What's your definition of what makes a statement inspired?

---

Things that are inspired by the Holy Spirit are not subject to review. It either has authority or not. If they can say, this isn't correct, or this isn't authoritative, that means they do not consider it inspired. That seems fairly straightforward, no?

Are the scriptures inspired? Are they subject to review or correction?

Quote:

---

Second, you do the same thing Roman Catholics do. Move the goals posts by avoiding specifics and just generally say "Well most protestants" or "some protestants" do this or that and so it's all crazy. This after we've been talking specific about Luther and even more specifically about a single book.

---

I have talked about specifics, and not moved any goal posts. The point was that the Reformers did say no to general counsels. And if we get down to specifics of councils, specific canons, Luther in particular absolutely did. In his own words. In his own writings. This is not "most protestants" or "some protestants."

Here it is simple enough - Seven Ecumenical councils are recognized by the Orthodox, and the Orthodox do not recognize post-schism councils (I think this is understandable). The Seven are also recognized by Rome. Meaning they were recognized by all Christendom, united. Why then do Lutherans only consider four "chief" councils? Specifics. They say no to general / ecumenical councils.

Quote:

---

Third, the implicit conclusion you draw around traditions, fathers and councils is just wrong. Unless you're now saying that all councils, including the Council of Florence are now infallibly correct? Or do you really just mean that if the Orthodox determine it to be "from the Holy Spirit" then it's correct, but if they don't then it can be discarded. One might notice that you would do the exact same thing you accuse the Reformers of doing.

---

All councils accepted by the Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit, are infallible. The things which are authoritative are the things which the Church considers authoritative, which have been considered authoritative "everywhere, always, by all."

If you can some things that the Church has considered and treated as authoritative and rank it in hierarchy against or over other things, they are not authoritative; one could be wrong; one is not infallible. Rather than arguing and saying that things are wrong, you should address the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

Finally, the last statement is just not true nor is it claimed to be true. The Holy Spirit clearly works through the Fathers and us today. Lutheran's in particular emphasize vocation as our witness to the world.

---

Missing the point, you separated the sentence from the rest of it. Let me put it another way. All sola scriptura Christians will say the scriptures are reliable and authoritative because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. This belief in inspiration is not extended elsewhere in the activity of the Church. This is a problem, because the exact same ratification by use is how we arrived at the canon. The Holy Spirit is not limited to scripture in this kind of authority.

Quote:

---

This just continues to be abstract and devoid of the historical accuracy.

Lutherans did not want to throw out all tradition. They wouldn't have been called Reformers had they wanted to do that. As mentioned, The original Augsburg Confession was just the "Abuses Corrected."

However, to claim that we must accept a tradition as "from the Holy Spirit" simply because the Church claims it to be is also equally as insane. Lets take one of the primary points of the Reformation...Indulgences. Under your logic, this was a tradition of the Church and must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet even Rome relented and modified/curbed this "tradition."

The rest is you attempting to make a distinction that doesn't actually exist.

---

Listen, repeatedly saying "this is wrong" doesn't actually make a discussion or illumine anyone. It's just arguing. If it is abstract, explain why. If it is devoid of historical accuracy, show the inaccuracy.

I never said Lutherans wanted to throw out all tradition. I said they did not consider Holy Tradition to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore Authoritative.

If you're going to call people "insane" I think the conversation is probably over with. No sense in being emotional.

And no, you have not applied "my logic" correctly because indulgences are a novelty that are not part of the fabric of holy tradition. Indulgences were not practiced "everywhere, always, by all." Proclaiming something as normative doesn't make it so. The pope is not the Church. The magisterium of Rome is not the Church. But what the Church - which is the clergy and the laity together with Christ as the head - considers authoritative is absolutely authoritative.

Let's put this another way. Why do you accept the scriptures are from the Spirit? What standard of ratification can we say is true about the scriptures, but not about tradition?

And this is kind of the issue with the Reformation. The entire argument is "But Rome...".

No but Rome. I don't care that Rome abused their power; by this point Rome was centuries in schism. How can anything they do that was developed after the schism meet the standard of consensus in all of Christianity?

The really troubling thing is that the Reformers didn't stop with novelties and abuses but opened it all up - "But Rome..." means now we can judge later the ecumenical councils? And open the matter of what books are to be read in Church (which is the ancient epitome of what is scripture). It is a very dangerous thing.

Quote:

---

All sola scriptura Christians will say the scriptures are reliable and authoritative because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. This belief in inspiration is not extended elsewhere in the activity of the Church. This is a problem, because the exact same ratification by use is how we arrived at the canon. The Holy Spirit is not limited to scripture in this kind of authority.

---

Ill interject as a sola scriptura person: While you're not wrong about the holy spirit, it's also the logical conclusion that no other Christian faith believes in their traditions but that that Scripture is just "a nice thing on the side". Even RCs believe that their traditions don't violate Scripture.

Essentially...if its good enough to be canon, then it's good enough to be the sufficient authority.

I was thinking about your first post and thought there is a point. Tradition (including which books are canonical) is descriptive, not prescriptive, in formation. What I mean by that is, what we say is authoritative is from describing what the Church does and teaches and how we act. What the church did in unison, this is tradition. It's not a question of you must do this, or you must do that, or you must use these books of the Bible or pray this liturgy. That's not how it came about, and if you read carefully the arguments in history this frames them nicely - like Victor excommunicating people over the date of Pascha. This is how they'd done it, and that's ok. The canon was the books all of the orthodox (non-heretical) churches used liturgically. Some used some, some used all, but collectively the canon describes these books. And likewise for all of holy tradition.

Quote:

---

Things that are inspired by the Holy Spirit are not subject to review. It either has authority or not. If they can say, this isn't correct, or this isn't authoritative, that means they do not consider it inspired. That seems fairly straightforward, no?

Are the scriptures inspired? Are they subject to review or correction?

---

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Under this logic, every word of the Fathers is infallible simply because someone could claim they have authority or not..

This is not a standard, but offering complete subjectivity to avoid actually providing a concrete definition.

Quote:

---

I have talked about specifics, and not moved any goal posts. The point was that the Reformers did say no to general counsels. And if we get down to specifics of councils, specific canons, Luther in particular absolutely did. In his own words. In his own writings. This is not "most protestants" or "some protestants."

Here it is simple enough - Seven Ecumenical councils are recognized by the Orthodox, and the Orthodox do not recognize post-schism councils (I think this is understandable). The Seven are also recognized by Rome. Meaning they were recognized by all Christendom, united. Why then do Lutherans only consider four "chief" councils? Specifics. They say no to general / ecumenical councils.

---

If your definition is abiding by the first 7 councils, then I assume you're supportive of Lutheran's joining communion at your church. You won't see any conflict if we stick to just those.

However, what we both know, is the conflict arises when you step outside those 7 councils.

And this gets to another problem, I think it was Fr Ware that said he didn't even think it would be possible for the Orthodox to ever hold an Ecumenical Council again. I believe there was an attempt a couple years ago that failed pretty badly. So either all problems is Christendom were settled by the 8th century or there's a significant flaw.

Quote:

---

All councils accepted by the Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit, are infallible. The things which are authoritative are the things which the Church considers authoritative, which have been considered authoritative "everywhere, always, by all."

If you can some things that the Church has considered and treated as authoritative and rank it in hierarchy against or over other things, they are not authoritative; one could be wrong; one is not infallible. Rather than arguing and saying that things are wrong, you should address the issue at hand.

---

So rephrasing this, what the Orthodox consider to be authoritative is authoritative, and what they don't isn't. Why? Because you have self defined yourself as "the Church."

Yet no-one else is allowed to make that same claim...

Quote:

---

Listen, repeatedly saying "this is wrong" doesn't actually make a discussion or illumine anyone. It's just arguing. If it is abstract, explain why. If it is devoid of historical accuracy, show the inaccuracy.

---

This is what is always frustrating when discussing things with you. When you make vague statements, that's acceptable. When it's pointed out that it's vague and wrong, it's their fault for not explaining why your vague statements are wrong.

Quote:

---

If you're going to call people "insane" I think the conversation is probably over with. No sense in being emotional.

---

Who's emotional? It's fair to call the comment insane when it is. It's devoid of history.

If we set the standard as "everywhere, always, by all" then there's no tradition.

Let's take the 7 Sacraments. Does this meet that standard? No it won't.

Martin Chemnitz notes most of the ancient writers number on two such "mysteries" or "sacraments"...Baptism and the Lord's Super.

He cites:
Justin - Apology 2
Tertullian - Contra Marcionem books 1 and 4 and De corona militis. He adds the laying on of hands and anointing in "De resurrection cranes.
Cyril of Jerusalem "where he specifically describes the religious instruction and the initiation into the mysteries, speaks only of the mysteries of Baptism and the Lord's Suppers.For when he argues about the anointing he understands not a special sacrament but a ceremony connected with the act of Baptism, as we shallowing show later."
Gregory - multi secularism - expresses 3; Baptism, anointing and the Body and Blood of the Lord
Augustine - counter more than 7. He included being consecrated as a catechumen as a sacrament as well.

So point being, under your definition, Christianity falls apart.

Zobel said:

---

And this is kind of the issue with the Reformation. The entire argument is "But Rome...".

No but Rome. I don't care that Rome abused their power; by this point Rome was centuries in schism. How can anything they do that was developed after the schism meet the standard of consensus in all of Christianity?

The really troubling thing is that the Reformers didn't stop with novelties and abuses but opened it all up - "But Rome..." means now we can judge later the ecumenical councils? And open the matter of what books are to be read in Church (which is the ancient epitome of what is scripture). It is a very dangerous thing.

---

Unfortunately it's just a reality that the Reformers were trying to reform Rome. It's unavoidable.

However, under your logic, Christianity must have stopped cold in 1054 since all consensus was gone.

So do we throw out the last 1000 years of understanding and development? Of course not.

We "should" appreciate that we are all followers of Jesus and doing the best we can to become more like Him. And that's going to mean that we do things that are different than other groups. That doesn't mean we shouldn't learn what we can from each other...but it also means we shouldn't set ourselves up as the superior in the discussion...

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Under this logic, every word of the Fathers is infallible simply because someone could claim they have authority or not..

This is not a standard, but offering complete subjectivity to avoid actually providing a concrete definition.

---

Not every word, no. I never made that claim. And not someone. The Church, collectively.

You didn't answer the question. Are the scriptures inspired? Are they subject to review or correction?

Quote:

---

If your definition is abiding by the first 7 councils, then I assume you're supportive of Lutheran's joining communion at your church. You won't see any conflict if we stick to just those.

However, what we both know, is the conflict arises when you step outside those 7 councils.

---

It's not limited to the first seven councils. And of course if Lutherans can confess the symbol of faith without the filioque I'd be happy for them to come to the faith.

Why do you say the conflict arises? At the first seven councils the Symbol remains intact; and yet, you confess the filioque. Why? The first seven councils are not the first four commonly referred to. Luther felt no allegiance to any particular canon, but only the dogmatic statements.

Quote:

---

And this gets to another problem, I think it was Fr Ware that said he didn't even think it would be possible for the Orthodox to ever hold an Ecumenical Council again. I believe there was an attempt a couple years ago that failed pretty badly. So either all problems is Christendom were settled by the 8th century or there's a significant flaw.

---

I don't see how it's relevant. Are we in need to an ecumenical council? Do we need a dogmatic statement on the faith to clarify some new and novel heresy or settle some kind of issue?

I mean, by this logic saying "well we can't ratify a new book of scripture, so all scripture is suspect and that's a significant flaw" applies.

And we can't even get the creed right, or abide by the canons of the seven ecumenical councils. Baby steps.

Quote:

---

So rephrasing this, what the Orthodox consider to be authoritative is authoritative, and what they don't isn't. Why? Because you have self defined yourself as "the Church."

Yet no-one else is allowed to make that same claim...

---

Not limited to Orthodoxy, per se. Everywhere, always, by all. That is the standard, and it is the standard under which the ecumenical councils were held and accepted - by literally all of Christendom. The filioque? No. .

Quote:

---

This is what is always frustrating when discussing things with you. When you make vague statements, that's acceptable. When it's pointed out that it's vague and wrong, it's their fault for not explaining why your vague statements are wrong.

---

What have I said that is vague? You haven't demonstrated anything being vague, or wrong. Saying something is wrong isn't a QED. I'm happy to clarify any point you find vague.

Quote:

---

Who's emotional? It's fair to call the comment insane when it is. It's devoid of history.

If we set the standard as "everywhere, always, by all" then there's no tradition.

Let's take the 7 Sacraments. Does this meet that standard? No it won't.

---

I disagree with the bold. The gospels have been held everywhere, always, by all. The canon as well, by the ancient definitions (i.e., what is fit to be read in Church). The symbol of faith reflects the faith passed down once to all the saints, and for a long time was held and accepted everywhere, always, by all. Departures show the fact of the matter.

In doing this you deny not only the Holy Spirit but the scriptures which have clear statements to this effect. There is one bread and one cup; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

When has the seven sacraments been a topic of breaking ecclesial communion? The Orthodox say there are at least seven but make no firm count. Why is this some kind of sticking point?

Under my definition Christianity exists as it always had, because Tradition is a witness to Christ by affirming His teaching, through the apostles, through the scriptures, through the fathers, through the dogmatic statements made and accepted by the Church, through the witness of the life within the praxis of the Church.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately it's just a reality that the Reformers were trying to reform Rome. It's unavoidable.

However, under your logic, Christianity must have stopped cold in 1054 since all consensus was gone.

So do we throw out the last 1000 years of understanding and development? Of course not.

---

Yes, the schism bred corruption which resulted in further schism. This is not a good reason to persist in schism, or to go to the time before the schism and destroy the unity that existed then.

Christianity didn't stop cold, and nothing I've said says this. The Truth of the Faith was passed down once. People may depart from it, but the unanimous confession around the world is a witness to it.

We do not depart from understanding - but the faith doesn't develop. Christ Jesus promised the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth. All the development and understanding is merely commentary on the truth as it is. The Truth doesn't change or develop, and neither does the faith.

Quote:

---

We "should" appreciate that we are all followers of Jesus and doing the best we can to become more like Him. And that's going to mean that we do things that are different than other groups. That doesn't mean we shouldn't learn what we can from each other...but it also means we shouldn't set ourselves up as the superior in the discussion...

---

The oneness promised by Christ is the same unity as we see in the Trinity. He says "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

There is no problem with "doing things differently," and this is a mischaracterization of the argument. There is a problem with a lack of unity in confession, and to breaking the unity that Christians are supposed to have so that we can be a witness to the world. Because the Church, through the Spirit, is a witness to Christ.


There is no superiority here. The things that I am talking about - the ecumenical councils, the descriptive adoption of the canon, the addition of the filioque... all of these things are historical fact. They are not opinion, they are not subjective.

Christ teaches we are judged by what we are given. We should not expect that people who lived in times where it was difficult or impossible to read the writings of the fathers, to become aware of the history of the church, to even read and approach scripture to have our same perspective. But we have so much at our fingertips, we could read the fathers all night if we chose. There is no excuse to persist in schism.

Zobel said:

---

Christ teaches we are judged by what we are given. We should not expect that people who lived in times where it was difficult or impossible to read the writings of the fathers, to become aware of the history of the church, to even read and approach scripture to have our same perspective. But we have so much at our fingertips, we could read the fathers all night if we chose. There is no excuse to persist in schism.

---

I think about this often. I told this to a Baptist who was attending Baylor for his degree in divinity and he was put off by it. Ironically he told me they are spending a good chunk of the semester going over St. Basil for preaching...

AgLiving06 said:

---

I always find these comments the most interesting.

On one hand Roman Catholics and Orthodox claim unity. Believe the phrase is they are two lungs of the same body.
On the other other hand, they disagree on pretty much everything.

But now with the new wrinkle, that Luther should have known Rome was wrong (or right?) and he either went to far or not far enough.

---

No idea where you heard that from but they do not claim unity haha. Unless the great schism has been healed and we are in communion now...I haven't heard anything about that. What's hilarious is that if it did happen Protestant conspiracy theorists would come out and say that's the New World Order.

It really is this simple...Luther made a bold stand against papal abuses but provided no solid alternative than papalisim itself when it comes to issue of theological certainty. The reason why can make this claim is that enough time has gone by to see the evolution of church history in America (also the immediate divisions during the reformation) and we have access to everything that the Orthodox Church has to offer. If you dive into philosophy you can easily see how our churches here are being slammed against the cultural tides. That's not to say you won't find God in our churches...many of us have. We are at a crossroad right now in our culture and it's going to be very interesting to see how postmodernism and nihilism effect our communities.

Quote:

---

Not every word, no. I never made that claim. And not someone. The Church, collectively.

You didn't answer the question. Are the scriptures inspired? Are they subject to review or correction?

---

You're right. You didn't make the claim. That claim would be more reasonable then what you tried to claim though.

Here's your claim:

"Things that are inspired by the Holy Spirit are not subject to review. It either has authority or not. If they can say, this isn't correct, or this isn't authoritative, that means they do not consider it inspired. That seems fairly straightforward, no?"

This boils down to if we want to use it to defend our belief, we will call it authoritative. Otherwise we won't. What's straight forward is it boils down to "we will do and believe what we want."

Meanwhile, you'll say Luther, Rome, Calvinists, Methodists, etc cannot do the same. Why? Because it doesn't align with what the Orthodox decided what right (I won't concede your claim that it's the Church)

Quote:

---

I don't see how it's relevant. Are we in need to an ecumenical council? Do we need a dogmatic statement on the faith to clarify some new and novel heresy or settle some kind of issue?

---

Your predecessors did. Hence the Council of Florence. You can dispute the findings (as I would), but clearly the Orthodox at one point felt it right to do. It is interesting that since they didn't like the result, it just falls into the "non-authoritative" category. Interesting how that happens.

Quote:

---

I disagree with the bold. The gospels have been held everywhere, always, by all. The canon as well, by the ancient definitions (i.e., what is fit to be read in Church). The symbol of faith reflects the faith passed down once to all the saints, and for a long time was held and accepted everywhere, always, by all. Departures show the fact of the matter.

In doing this you deny not only the Holy Spirit but the scriptures which have clear statements to this effect. There is one bread and one cup; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

When has the seven sacraments been a topic of breaking ecclesial communion? The Orthodox say there are at least seven but make no firm count. Why is this some kind of sticking point?

---

You can disagree with the bold. Certainly your choice. It doesn't change that it's more correct than your assertion. At least 7 sacraments? As I pointed out, the ancient Fathers only saw 2-3 at most. So your "everywhere, always, by all" falls apart even when you bring in the leeway of "at least 7."

Ironically, the more I think about it, even the decisions of the Councils fail your standard. Logically there would have been no need for a Council at all if everyone "everywhere, always, by all" agreed with the tradition. So we will need to remove the Nicene Creed (no more Filioque issue!).

Do you see why your standard sounds cool, but is completely unworkable?

Christianity has always had conflict. We see that in the Scriptures, where even the Apostles disagreed. Most of Paul's letters are resolving conflict.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately it's just a reality that the Reformers were trying to reform Rome. It's unavoidable.

However, under your logic, Christianity must have stopped cold in 1054 since all consensus was gone.

So do we throw out the last 1000 years of understanding and development? Of course not.

---

Yes, the schism bred corruption which resulted in further schism. This is not a good reason to persist in schism, or to go to the time before the schism and destroy the unity that existed then.

Christianity didn't stop cold, and nothing I've said says this. The Truth of the Faith was passed down once. People may depart from it, but the unanimous confession around the world is a witness to it.

We do not depart from understanding - but the faith doesn't develop. Christ Jesus promised the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth. All the development and understanding is merely commentary on the truth as it is. The Truth doesn't change or develop, and neither does the faith.

Quote:

---

We "should" appreciate that we are all followers of Jesus and doing the best we can to become more like Him. And that's going to mean that we do things that are different than other groups. That doesn't mean we shouldn't learn what we can from each other...but it also means we shouldn't set ourselves up as the superior in the discussion...

---

The oneness promised by Christ is the same unity as we see in the Trinity. He says "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

There is no problem with "doing things differently," and this is a mischaracterization of the argument. There is a problem with a lack of unity in confession, and to breaking the unity that Christians are supposed to have so that we can be a witness to the world. Because the Church, through the Spirit, is a witness to Christ.


There is no superiority here. The things that I am talking about - the ecumenical councils, the descriptive adoption of the canon, the addition of the filioque... all of these things are historical fact. They are not opinion, they are not subjective.

Christ teaches we are judged by what we are given. We should not expect that people who lived in times where it was difficult or impossible to read the writings of the fathers, to become aware of the history of the church, to even read and approach scripture to have our same perspective. But we have so much at our fingertips, we could read the fathers all night if we chose. There is no excuse to persist in schism.

---

Historically this would have been resolved with councils.

The Orthodox specifically tried this with the Council of Florence.

So why does schism resist? Primarily (imo) because people put their traditions above all else.

It's much easier to sit on the sidelines and say "my traditions are right and authoritative" then to step into the discussion and risk being proved wrong.

The reason you don't accept the claim that it is the Orthodox Church that holds authority is because our connection to reality was superseded by the connection to the self. This was a medieval development and an issue that you can take up with the reformation, the RCC, and scientific advancement. You can check out Owen Barfield if you need info on the loss of meaning in the world...that's what all of this comes down to.

Quote:

---

This boils down to if we want to use it to defend our belief, we will call it authoritative. Otherwise we won't. What's straight forward is it boils down to "we will do and believe what we want."

Meanwhile, you'll say Luther, Rome, Calvinists, Methodists, etc cannot do the same. Why? Because it doesn't align with what the Orthodox decided what right (I won't concede your claim that it's the Church)

---

I'd be more productive if you actually addressed the things that I'm saying, instead of things that I'm not.

You are all about being vague and speaking in generalities, but you say "cannot do the same." The same what? Make the claim to a historical faith that was held over the entire world? Specifics, please. What claims enjoy the unanimity of the ecumenical councils that the Reformers want that the Orthodox don't?

Quote:

---

Your predecessors did. Hence the Council of Florence. You can dispute the findings (as I would), but clearly the Orthodox at one point felt it right to do. It is interesting that since they didn't like the result, it just falls into the "non-authoritative" category. Interesting how that happens.

---

You're close here. When you say "they" didn't like the result, who is "they"? Why was the council of Florence not authoritative?

I speak of the Church. The clergy is not the Church. The Pope is not the Church. Even all the bishops of the world assembled are not the Church. The Emperor is not the Church.

Quote:

---

You can disagree with the bold. Certainly your choice. It doesn't change that it's more correct than your assertion. At least 7 sacraments? As I pointed out, the ancient Fathers only saw 2-3 at most. So your "everywhere, always, by all" falls apart even when you bring in the leeway of "at least 7."

---

You're working on a different definition of sacraments, and at one point you go out of your way to say there's no consensus in the fathers, but now want to suggest there was a consensus for 2-3 at most? Haha.

Descriptive, not prescriptive. The way to say "how many holy mysteries are there?" would be to say - in the (small-o) orthodox Churches, what have been held to be holy mysteries? Do you see how you ask the wrong question?

That's why we say - at least. Your argument is with Rome.

Quote:

---

Do you see why your standard sounds cool, but is completely unworkable?

---

No. Your conclusion here, more or less, is that heresies disprove unity. This is the exact opposite of what the scriptures teach - "there must be heresies among you to show which of you are approved." The conciliar response to heresy is to witness to the faith which exists in the Churches, to show what is approved by the Spirit.

Quote:

---

Historically this would have been resolved with councils.

The Orthodox specifically tried this with the Council of Florence.

So why does schism resist? Primarily (imo) because people put their traditions above all else.

It's much easier to sit on the sidelines and say "my traditions are right and authoritative" then to step into the discussion and risk being proved wrong.

---

"The Orthodox tried..."? The council of Ferrara-Florence was not an Eastern attempt at union. It was originally called at Basel and was early on focused on reform - at least part of it was an attempt in the west to examine the question of papal supremacy vs conciliar supremacy. This is simply not correct, which is ironic for someone who keeps throwing barbs about "historical accuracy".

And again, who are "the Orthodox"? Some of the bishops and the Byzantine emperor?

I'll ask this again, even though you don't seem interested in actually examining the challenge this presents.

How was the canon of scripture formed? Why was the witness of the Church reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't inspired scripture but isn't reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't correct praxis and dogma?

And, if you accept the ecumenical councils, why do you use the filioque? The symbol of faith was established and agreed upon by all Christians, East and West - affirmed repeatedly at subsequent councils. The ecumenical council of Ephesus declared an anathema against changing it.

Quote:

---

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

---

Forget fiddlin' details. Specifics. Either these councils -- which are formal representations of the broad consensus of faith across the -- world mean something, or there is absolutely no hope for unity in the church whatsoever. In which case, forget the argument, believe what you like, use the scriptures you like, and why trouble other people about it?

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The reason you don't accept the claim that it is the Orthodox Church that holds authority is because our connection to reality was superseded by the connection to the self. This was a medieval development and an issue that you can take up with the reformation, the RCC, and scientific advancement. You can check out Owen Barfield if you need info on the loss of meaning in the world...that's what all of this comes down to.

---

That's an opinion for sure.

Alternatively, to the best of my ability, God did not lead me to Orthodox, but He led me elsewhere.

Because like you I visited multiple churches.

I spent years listening to Catholic Answers before realizing Roman Catholicism had a multitude of issues.

I spent a lot of time exploring the Orthodox Church, including visiting Zobel's Church several times along with one closer to me. I also took the intro classes with another aggie on this forum.

I read the books and listened to the podcasts (still do to both some Catholic and Orthodox). I took away positives from it all.

But God led me to Lutheranism and as best I can tell, it does the best job preaching the Scriptures and the understanding that the Father's had.

Quote:

---

I'd be more productive if you actually addressed the things that I'm saying, instead of things that I'm not.

You are all about being vague and speaking in generalities, but you say "cannot do the same." The same what? Make the claim to a historical faith that was held over the entire world? Specifics, please. What claims enjoy the unanimity of the ecumenical councils that the Reformers want that the Orthodox don't?

---

Rephrasing your statements is being vague? That's an interesting tact of you to take for sure.

As I said, if it was as simple as hold those who hold to the 7 councils we should all be in communion tomorrow right? We could certainly pretend that the filioque is all that stands in the way, but we know that's not true.

I seem to recall that the Orthodox and Lutherans exchanged letters early on. Of all the reasons given for why they didn't join in fellowship, I don't remember the filioque being the root cause of it....

Quote:

---

You're close here. When you say "they" didn't like the result, who is "they"? Why was the council of Florence not authoritative?

I speak of the Church. The clergy is not the Church. The Pope is not the Church. Even all the bishops of the world assembled are not the Church. The Emperor is not the Church.

---

And this is generally the problem. You say you speak of "the Church." What you mean is you speak of only the Orthodox being "the Church." Everybody else is in schism.

You can choose to try and use that term in that way, and I can choose to not accept it.

Quote:

---

You're working on a different definition of sacraments, and at one point you go out of your way to say there's no consensus in the fathers, but now want to suggest there was a consensus for 2-3 at most? Haha.

---

No, my point is that for you to claim "at least 7" does not confirm with your statement of "everywhere, always, by all." By your own measure, the Orthodox do not confirm with the ancient fathers.

Quote:

---

No. Your conclusion here, more or less, is that heresies disprove unity. This is the exact opposite of what the scriptures teach - "there must be heresies among you to show which of you are approved." The conciliar response to heresy is to witness to the faith which exists in the Churches, to show what is approved by the Spirit.

---

Who called it heresy? I'm simply pointing to that your statement falls apart because "everywhere, always, by all" is almost never applicable until it is defined by a person, tradition or council. Lets take icons for example. Under your logic, any christians who did not revere or venerate icons must not actually have been christians since that doesn't fit under the "everywhere, always, by all."

Yet this further degrades your argument. Since you don't believe another councils needed, there must also be no heresy (or other issues) to address. So I guess we can take communion with each other now?

Quote:

---

"The Orthodox tried..."? The council of Ferrara-Florence was not an Eastern attempt at union. It was originally called at Basel and was early on focused on reform - at least part of it was an attempt in the west to examine the question of papal supremacy vs conciliar supremacy. This is simply not correct, which is ironic for someone who keeps throwing barbs about "historical accuracy".

---

From Encyclopedia.com: Link

Quote:

---

During the next six weeks the Latins gave the Greeks cedulae on the primacy (see primacy of the pope) and the Eucharist (which were explained in two sessions, June 16, 18), and on purgatory. There were difficulties and tensions and concessions on both sides before agreement was reached. More friction arose over the wording of the decree, composed of the cedulae previously agreed on, to which an introduction and conclusion were added. The resulting Laetentur caeli was promulgated in solemn session, July 6, 1439, signed by Eugene and 116 Latins and by the emperor with 32 Greeks, four of whom acted as proxies of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Both groups agreed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle and spiration, the Latin "from" and the Greek "through" being equivalent and causal. In the Eucharist, rites in fermented and unfermented bread are both valid. After death some souls are purified by purgatorial punishments; others immediately receive their eternal destiny in hell or, with different degrees of beatitude, in heaven. The pope is the successor of St. Peter, head and teacher of the whole Church, and successor to the plenitude of power given by Christ to St. Peter; the usual precedence of the patriarchates is included.

---

But sure. the Council of Florence was just a western council of little value or meaning.

Certainly Mark Eugenicus (not sure if you consider him a saint or not?) is not celebrated for standing up to Rome....

Quote:

---

And, if you accept the ecumenical councils, why do you use the filioque?

---

First, the fight over the filioque wasn't our fight. You had that with Rome.
Second, I tend not to because I do know the history.
Third, lets not pretend this is "the dealbreaker. Even Fr Damick has talked about the ability to find common ground on this issue. As I said above, if this was "the issue" we'd be in communion tomorrow I bet.

Quote:

---

How was the canon of scripture formed? Why was the witness of the Church reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't inspired scripture but isn't reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't correct praxis and dogma?

---

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!

Putting Scripture itself on par with man's interpretation of it are apples to oranges arguments.

We can look to Judaisms to see the importance Scripture was to God in communicating his word to us.

So to try and play some gotcha game here just doesn't work.

Quote:

---

As I said, if it was as simple as hold those who hold to the 7 councils we should all be in communion tomorrow right? We could certainly pretend that the filioque is all that stands in the way, but we know that's not true.

I seem to recall that the Orthodox and Lutherans exchanged letters early on. Of all the reasons given for why they didn't join in fellowship, I don't remember the filioque being the root cause of it....

---

The filioque is, more or less, all that stands in the way. It's what caused the schism to begin with. A multitude of things have expanded from it, but it is the root. Or, it represents the root.

You remember wrong. The majority of the theological discussions in the three written responses from Patriarch Jeremias to the Tubingen Lutherans was about the filioque. The second letter in particular spent a good long bit on it. You should read "Augsburg and Constantinople" if you're interested.

Quote:

---

And this is generally the problem. You say you speak of "the Church." What you mean is you speak of only the Orthodox being "the Church." Everybody else is in schism.

You can choose to try and use that term in that way, and I can choose to not accept it.

---

Again, no, that is not what I said. I said what the Church is not. The Church is not bishops at a council, or the pope, or all bishops. I didn't say anything about which bishops or even who the Church is. I asked a question, and you make up a response and ignore the question.

I ask again. When you say "they" didn't like the result, who is "they"?

Quote:

---

No, my point is that for you to claim "at least 7" does not confirm with your statement of "everywhere, always, by all." By your own measure, the Orthodox do not confirm with the ancient fathers.

---

The Orthodox put no limit on the number of Holy Mysteries on the one hand; on the other, we also affirm St Paul to say there is properly only one Mystery (cf Ephesians 3).

You're asking me "the way Rome counts sacraments, how many are there?" The response is, we don't have the same definition - and neither did the fathers you're counting. So if you get tight with the definition, perhaps the number drops; if you're loose, it gets bigger. The problem here isn't my measure, its the definition. And again, you can't claim there is no consensus, then say there is consensus.

Quote:

---

Who called it heresy? I'm simply pointing to that your statement falls apart because "everywhere, always, by all" is almost never applicable until it is defined by a person, tradition or council. Lets take icons for example. Under your logic, any christians who did not revere or venerate icons must not actually have been christians since that doesn't fit under the "everywhere, always, by all."

---

Heresy just means self-chosen beliefs. You are suggesting that the fact that there are people who disagree proves that there is no unity. This is simply incorrect. Scripturally speaking, dissension and factions are there to prove who is affirmed by God, in unity.

And, again, you keep saying things I didn't say. Reverencing icons doesn't make you a Christian. On the other hand, the ancient tradition of the Church does involve icons and always has. Iconoclasm is the exception, and the church has, united, made this quite clear.

Quote:

---

Yet this further degrades your argument. Since you don't believe another councils needed, there must also be no heresy (or other issues) to address. So I guess we can take communion with each other now?

---

??? Of course heresies exist. I don't think anything that stands in the way of communion today is novel or unclear.

And I didn't say no councils are needed. The Orthodox hold synods every year - because, ironically, that's canonical (Nicaea, Canon 5). This is very bad argument.

Quote:

---

But sure. the Council of Florence was just a western council of little value or meaning.

---

Man, I didn't say that Florence didn't address the schism, or the filioque. What I said was that "The Orthodox tried..." was not correct or historically accurate.

1. It wasn't called by the Orthodox.
2. It wasn't even called initially to address the schism at all.
3. "The Orthodox" is a vague generality that isn't true as the majority of the Orthodox Churches were not represented.
4. Those who "tried" largely did it under pressure from the Emperor who wanted political support. And, even of those who signed on to the union document not a single one took communion with the Latins afterward.

Quote:

---

First, the fight over the filioque wasn't our fight. You had that with Rome.
Second, I tend not to because I do know the history.
Third, lets not pretend this is "the dealbreaker. Even Fr Damick has talked about the ability to find common ground on this issue. As I said above, if this was "the issue" we'd be in communion tomorrow I bet.

---

This is a cop out. You confess the filioque. This was addressed in ecumenical dialogue between the Lutherans and the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

"You" is not you personally - if you don't, more's the better. But "you Lutherans" absolutely do, and as long as this persists there is a substantial theological issue.

Again, if the Lutherans accept the Seven Ecumenical councils, why do they confess the filioque?

Quote:

---

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!

Putting Scripture itself on par with man's interpretation of it are apples to oranges arguments.

We can look to Judaisms to see the importance Scripture was to God in communicating his word to us.

So to try and play some gotcha game here just doesn't work.

---

??? Asking questions is not putting words in your mouth...??

I didn't put scripture on par with interpretation, or play a gotcha game. Come on, answer the questions. They are not gotchas, they are real, honest issues.

How was the canon formed? Ok, this is somewhat rhetorical, because we know it was formed through use, over centuries - the books that became canonical (which literally means "standard") were the ones used in the Churches. That is to say, the Church, through common use and confession - what I think can only be called practice and tradition - affirmed the canon.

So, if we accept the canon as it stands today (because you don't accept Trent, and there is no real standard for the canon before this), how can this be? How can we accept the tradition of the church as reliable and authoritative to determine the canon, but not in other things?

Quote:

---

Man, I didn't say that Florence didn't address the schism, or the filioque. What I said was that "The Orthodox tried..." was not correct or historically accurate.

1. It wasn't called by the Orthodox.
2. It wasn't even called initially to address the schism at all.
3. "The Orthodox" is a vague generality that isn't true as the majority of the Orthodox Churches were not represented.
4. Those who "tried" largely did it under pressure from the Emperor who wanted political support. And, even of those who signed on to the union document not a single one took communion with the Latins afterward.

---

I did not say it was called by the Orthodox. Who called it and why it was called is actually irrelevant. What's relevant is what was discussed and the conclusions drawn.

What it wasn't was what you tried to say it was: " at least part of it was an attempt in the west to examine the question of papal supremacy vs conciliar supremacy."

In fact, the Orthodox did attend AND agreed that there was common ground on the Filioque.

This then loops back to what I said in a previous post. It's a bit of circular logic to say that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit also seems to align with what the Church wants.

In this case, standing against the Filioque has become a bit of a rallying cry for the Orthodox as you've shown.

Quote:

---

This is a cop out. You confess the filioque. This was addressed in ecumenical dialogue between the Lutherans and the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

"You" is not you personally - if you don't, more's the better. But "you Lutherans" absolutely do, and as long as this persists there is a substantial theological issue.

Again, if the Lutherans accept the Seven Ecumenical councils, why do they confess the filioque?

---

Not a cop out. Simply the truth.

Jordan Cooper was asked about it and his basic response to it was "We are from the west, so it's there."

But this is really more about you trying to create a problem that even most of the Orthodox do not see as an issue.

From Father Damick:

Quote:

---

The Orthodox can agree with the interpretation of the filioque as the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, though we reject the manner in which it was inserted into the Creed. There is also language in St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor that the Spirit "rests in the Son," which has been the basis for some agreement in talks between our churches. Our critiques from here forward, therefore, are for the sense of the filioque as referring to the eternal origin of the Spirit.

Damick, Andrew Stephen. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: : Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape . Ancient Faith Publishing. Kindle Edition.

---

So why are we able to confess it? Because we are from the West and we don't pretend councils stopped in the 8th century.

Interestingly enough, I just realized there was a second council (Aptly named the Second Council of Lyons) where according to OrthodoxWiki (Link)

Quote:

---

The second council was convened by Pope Gregory X in 1274 to act on a pledge by the Eastern Roman emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos to reunite the Orthodox East with the West. While the West was represented, in addition to the Roman prelates, by representatives of kings of Germany, England, Scotland, France, the Spains, and Sicily, the East was represented only by the ambassador of emperor Michael and Greek clergy.

Concerning the Union of the Churches, the Orthodox delegation arrived in Lyons on June 24, 1274 and presented a letter from emperor Michael. On Feast of Peter and Paul, June 29, Pope Gregory celebrated a Mass in the Church of St. John in which both sides took part. During the Mass, the Orthodox clergy sang the Nicene Creedwith the addition of the Filioque clause three times. The council was seemingly a success.

The other item considered by the council that related to the Orthodox East was the financial aspects of a Crusade. Planned to begin in 1278, the Crusade did not have the support of the Western monarchs, who had been giving just lip service to the idea of the Crusade and not to committing actual troops. Pope Gregory's death in 1276 ended the planning for the Crusade, and the collected funds were distributed in Italy.

---

So we see multiple instances of the Orthodox agreeing that in some capacity the Filioque is an acceptable deviation, only to later backtrack. Again, seems to be a bit of a rallying cry to be "not Rome."

Quote:

---

??? Asking questions is not putting words in your mouth...??

I didn't put scripture on par with interpretation, or play a gotcha game. Come on, answer the questions. They are not gotchas, they are real, honest issues.

How was the canon formed? Ok, this is somewhat rhetorical, because we know it was formed through use, over centuries - the books that became canonical (which literally means "standard") were the ones used in the Churches. That is to say, the Church, through common use and confession - what I think can only be called practice and tradition - affirmed the canon.

So, if we accept the canon as it stands today (because you don't accept Trent, and there is no real standard for the canon before this), how can this be? How can we accept the tradition of the church as reliable and authoritative to determine the canon, but not in other things?

---

This "Why was the witness of the Church reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't inspired scripture but isn't reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't correct praxis and dogma?" is an attempt at a gotcha question.

But let me turn it around on you. I believe that Lutherans are actually attempting to live out the correct praxis and dogma of the ancient Church, with the developments in doctrine that have always taken place. So we accept that the Scriptures are correct because the Fathers believe it to be correct from the Holy Spirit. This includes noting the challenges the Fathers had with several of the Books (which we also accept). What I think gets missed is that Lutherans are not "Solo Scriptura", but Sola Scriptura (yes I realize solo is not latin).

I'll quote an LCMS Professor, Joel Biermann, who talked about how we understand "The Word of God.

He ordered it 1. Jesus 2. Preaching 3. Bible.

Quote:

---

So, now we come to the Bible. The Bible is essentially the account or narrative of God's reality in Christ written down. This is a great gift because it provides a benchmark and norm for the living account of God's revelation in the preaching. No preacher can dispense with the written textevery sermon, every proclamation needs to be in sync with this text or it is not faithful. And the church and even the paradosis is subject to the norm of the written textno part of the Apostolic Tradition would ever conflict or set aside any part of the Bible or it wouldn't be part of the Tradition. Yet, the Bible is not the source of faith, or the reason for faiththose gifts come from Christ. The Bible tells the story of God's work in Christ faithfully, so it is essential to good preaching. Yetif there was no Bibleor had never been a Biblethe story of God would still be true, and the church would still exist as it told that story and proclaimed God's promises to people who through the work of the Holy Spirit believed. A Christian doesn't need the Bible, but he does need Jesus. And he doesn't "get" Jesus through the Bible, he gets him through the church's proclamation which is of course normed and guided by the Bible. So, there is a close inter-relationship between all three forms of the Word of God, but the ordering is not without significance: Jesus comes in first, then the proclamation of the Living story, then the written account to norm and direct the proclamation.

---

So this is where it will get interesting, because you, Roman Catholics, and various other groups will probably claim the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

Who called it and why it was called is actually irrelevant. What's relevant is what was discussed and the conclusions drawn.

What it wasn't was what you tried to say it was: " at least part of it was an attempt in the west to examine the question of papal supremacy vs conciliar supremacy.

---

Frankly, this is bullcrap. You said the "The Orthodox specifically tried this with the Council of Florence." where "this" is schism. That's not how it happened. What you said was not correct.


The council of Basel was called to address the question of papal supremacy vs conciliar supremacy. The council lasted 18 years and spanned multiple popes, and was transferred several times. The Byzantines didn't even show up until 8 years in. You should at least read the wiki about it.

Quote:

---

In fact, the Orthodox did attend AND agreed that there was common ground on the Filioque.

---

You keep saying "The Orthodox". Who do you think is "The Orthodox"? The Byazntine emperor and his delegation is not "The Orthodox".

The entire thing was a political ploy. At the council, the Emperor actual forbade discussions on certain topics, and guided the discussion specifically to achieve union. You can read "The History of the Council of Florence" by Ostoumoff if you're interested in diving in.

Quote:

---

This then loops back to what I said in a previous post. It's a bit of circular logic to say that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit also seems to align with what the Church wants.

---

Forgive, but you're still not answering any questions. You keep shifting who you are calling "The Orthodox" and who you are calling "the Church."

Quote:

---

Not a cop out. Simply the truth.

Jordan Cooper was asked about it and his basic response to it was "We are from the west, so it's there."

But this is really more about you trying to create a problem that even most of the Orthodox do not see as an issue.

From Father Damick:

---

It's a cop out because the filioque is not established by any of the ecumenical councils.

"most orthodox" - source please? You've misunderstood Fr. Damick, because he clearly said "we reject the manner in which it was inserted into the Creed" and "Our critiques from here forward, therefore, are for the sense of the filioque as referring to the eternal origin of the Spirit." Well duh, that's the whole issue.

Quote:

---

So why are we able to confess it? Because we are from the West and we don't pretend councils stopped in the 8th century.

---

The irony here is dripping.

Quote:

---

So we see multiple instances of the Orthodox agreeing that in some capacity the Filioque is an acceptable deviation, only to later backtrack. Again, seems to be a bit of a rallying cry to be "not Rome."

---

Who are "The Orthodox"? You ignore this question, and it answers your confusion.

Quote:

---

This "Why was the witness of the Church reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't inspired scripture but isn't reliable and authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't correct praxis and dogma?" is an attempt at a gotcha question.

But let me turn it around on you. I believe that Lutherans are actually attempting to live out the correct praxis and dogma of the ancient Church, with the developments in doctrine that have always taken place. So we accept that the Scriptures are correct because the Fathers believe it to be correct from the Holy Spirit. This includes noting the challenges the Fathers had with several of the Books (which we also accept). What I think gets missed is that Lutherans are not "Solo Scriptura", but Sola Scriptura (yes I realize solo is not latin).

---

This is a non answer. How do you know what books are scripture? it's not a gotcha simply because it's troubling.

The canon never became authoritative because of a formal canonical list. The canonical lists were descriptive, post-facto declarations of what the Church already regarded as divinely inspired. The councils such as the ones in the late 4th century at Hippo and Carthage didn't make anything new, but standardized (literally canonized) what was already the practice of the churches.

If that last sentence sounds cloyingly familiar, it is because this is what we recognize for all dogma. It simply codifies, standardizes, formalizes what is already extant in the churches - the faith of the apostles passed down once for all to the saints.

Here is the summary.

The reason you can't answer the question about the ecumenical councils and the filioque is simply because the Lutherans do not follow them. They follow some, but not all. They accept later councils that amended them - the filioque is clear evidence of this - or reject other portions they do not like, either formally or de facto. This is simply what was stated from the get-go, and we've gone round and round as you've avoided this. It is quite clear. It's also quite clear that there has been a theological rationalization of this position. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant; there is a basis for these beliefs and actions by the Lutherans. But they do not feel bound by the Seven ecumenical councils - its clear in their praxis, their creeds, and their teachings. I don't know why you are troubled by this.

The reason you can't answer a question about the canon is self-evident. It is anachronistic and illogical to subject everything to the canon when the canon itself is clearly not a cut and dry issue in the history of the Church. The reason it feels like a gotcha is because it shows the futility of subjecting everything to something as a 'last word' when that thing itself is not self-ratifying.

This is long past productive. I don't think there's anything else for me to say, so I'll bow out.

Quote:

---

Frankly, this is bullcrap. You said the "The Orthodox specifically tried this with the Council of Florence." where "this" is schism. That's not how it happened. What you said was not correct.


The council of Basel was called to address the question of papal supremacy vs conciliar supremacy. The council lasted 18 years and spanned multiple popes, and was transferred several times. The Byzantines didn't even show up until 8 years in. You should at least read the wiki about it.

---

Frankly, it's not and you are simply trying to squirm out of this.

I'll gladly say I misspoke or even incorrectly spoke on "why Florence was called" because it is truly irrelevant.

But I'll repeat, what was discussed, and ultimately agreed to at that meeting is of utmost importance and you continue to try and avoid this on technicalities.

We know what was discussed, we know who signed on as support. That is a simply truth.

Quote:

---

You keep saying "The Orthodox". Who do you think is "The Orthodox"? The Byazntine emperor and his delegation is not "The Orthodox".

The entire thing was a political ploy. At the council, the Emperor actual forbade discussions on certain topics, and guided the discussion specifically to achieve union. You can read "The History of the Council of Florence" by Ostoumoff if you're interested in diving in.

---

To use your terms, "this is bullcrap."

First, it's worth pointing out the hypocrisy of your statements. On one hand you want to say that just because Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and the Greeks were part of a discussion, that doesn't constitute "the Orthodox Church." On the other hand, it's a cop out to point out that the Pope excommunicating the Ecumenical Patriarch is not the fight of the Lutherans.

Second, in the past, you've called out Luther from breaking from Rome. Said he should have been willing to risk jail or death...yet you give a pass to a delegation that willful joined a council and were pressured. What do you think the Reformers faced everyday of their lives? This should be common ground, but even here you want to divide.

Quote:

---

It's a cop out because the filioque is not established by any of the ecumenical councils.

"most orthodox" - source please? You've misunderstood Fr. Damick, because he clearly said "we reject the manner in which it was inserted into the Creed" and "Our critiques from here forward, therefore, are for the sense of the filioque as referring to the eternal origin of the Spirit." Well duh, that's the whole issue.

---

Again, you search for technicalities.

I've already said above that I don't say it during the Nicene Creed. Though to be clear, because the history is messy, not because in a lot of sense it is true. The Orthodox have agreed at multiple occasions this is true. It is simply a rallying cry (which I will comment on further).

Quote:

---

This is a non answer. How do you know what books are scripture? it's not a gotcha simply because it's troubling.

The canon never became authoritative because of a formal canonical list. The canonical lists were descriptive, post-facto declarations of what the Church already regarded as divinely inspired. The councils such as the ones in the late 4th century at Hippo and Carthage didn't make anything new, but standardized (literally canonized) what was already the practice of the churches.

If that last sentence sounds cloyingly familiar, it is because this is what we recognize for all dogma. It simply codifies, standardizes, formalizes what is already extant in the churches - the faith of the apostles passed down once for all to the saints.

---

Funny how you avoid the nice long quote from a Systematic Professor within the LCMS, who clearly talks about the Bible's place in Lutheran Doctrine. So it's not a non-answer, it's just an answer you don't like.

Quote:

---

Here is the summary.

The reason you can't answer the question about the ecumenical councils and the filioque is simply because the Lutherans do not follow them. They follow some, but not all. They accept later councils that amended them - the filioque is clear evidence of this - or reject other portions they do not like, either formally or de facto. This is simply what was stated from the get-go, and we've gone round and round as you've avoided this. It is quite clear. It's also quite clear that there has been a theological rationalization of this position. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant; there is a basis for these beliefs and actions by the Lutherans. But they do not feel bound by the Seven ecumenical councils - its clear in their praxis, their creeds, and their teachings. I don't know why you are troubled by this.

The reason you can't answer a question about the canon is self-evident. It is anachronistic and illogical to subject everything to the canon when the canon itself is clearly not a cut and dry issue in the history of the Church. The reason it feels like a gotcha is because it shows the futility of subjecting everything to something as a 'last word' when that thing itself is not self-ratifying.

---

Because the world kept moving. That's just the truth. Councils took place, the Orthodox participated. But since they did not like the outcomes, they refuse to accept them. That's an Orthodox problem, not a Christianity problem.

Quote:

---

This is long past productive. I don't think there's anything else for me to say, so I'll bow out.

---

Almost all conversations with you are not productive, whether it be with me or others. The only "productive" discussions I see are when someone agrees with you and not vice versa. A huge problem I have in these "discussions" with you is that they are not "discussions." We could be learning a lot from each other, but you don't come here to have a discussion. You don't come to listen or learn. You come with the approach that the Orthodox are correct and everyone else is in schism and wrong. In your mind there's no possible way that Luther or Roman Catholics or Calvin or other could have possibly read the Fathers right, because the only right way is the Orthodox ways. It's why I generally don't engage with you on much and why I pointed out when I realized you had changed your name.

Against my better judgment I just want to point out a couple of things.

The bishops who signed on to union at Florence deserve every bit of criticism they got - and they got plenty - and in no way have I given them a pass. There is a reason St Mark of Ephesus is honored, and a reason unionists were immediately rejected, and for the most part, repented of the union.

Scholarly review makes it quite clear that the unionists were politically motivated, and it also shows where union failed.

"The primary cause for which the Union was to be concluded, so pro-Unionist speeches are the council of Florence expressly state, was to avert the Turkish danger." (Intellectual Repercussions of the Council of Florence, Church History Vol. 24, No. 4 - link here).

"The expressed purpose of the Greeks and Latins in coming to the Council had been to discover the Truth for Christian teaching. But in fact both sides came together already possessed of the Truth. The Greeks, with three exceptions, did sign the decretum of Florence, but a comparison of these signatures with the annotated list of Greek signatories compiled some ten years later by Scholarios shows that every one of them but four must have lost - or regained - the Truth again." (ibid).

"To [Scholarios], political opportunists ready to tamper 'a little bit' with Orthodoxy to accept this lesser evil in the hope of checking the dreaded Turk were simply revealing their religious indifferentism." (ibd).

"The Unionists could rely on the Emperor and a segment of higher officialdom but had to face the hostility of...the lower clergy, the monks, the faithful...The emperor did not control the Church; he also had to take public opinion into account....among the common faithful, emotion was everything. They were told to shun the unionists as one does a snake." (ibid).

"[Syropulos] tells the story of a perfectly Orthodox priest who had never seen the enthronement of a patriarch, and so he came to look at the procession connected with the consecration of the pro-Unionist patriarch Metrophanes. Later the same day he found that not one member of his parish appeared for Divine services. The next day also the church remained empty. Finally, the priest learned that his parish had rejected him because, so they said, 'thou hath concelebrated with the Patriarch and become a Latin.' The poor priest tried to explain that he was simply an onlooker. To no avail. They granted him the point but added, 'But thou wert the Latinists' fellow traveler.' " (ibid).

So again, who is the Church?

///


It's kind of unfair to be accused of not having discussions when, as far as I can, I have tried to answer every question you've asked of me, but at no point have you seemed to answer questions I put forward. You dismiss most of it gotchas or technicalities, and statements I put forward are similarly "ahistorical" or "irrelevant". At the same time, you don't actually attempt to address the supposed inaccuracies.

You've called me a hypocrite. You use words like "nonsense"and "just wrong", "abstract," "devoid of historical reality," and "insane" to characterize things I say, but statements you put out without support are "just the truth." And then you wonder why discussions aren't productive? Tsk.

Separately and for general interest (if there's anyone else still reading)... The framework and consequences of Basle-Ferrara-Florence with regard to papal infallibility, councils, etc. are very interesting. The book by von Dollinger, "The Pope and the Council" written in 1870 is fascinating. If you jump to chapter XXIV on page 308 (343 of the pdf) you can dive right in.

Also a good read:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3162003