No. 2. >> Hello. I'm Eric and my ministry is among thousands of nominal Catholics and Orthodox. I'm pretty sure that neither of these two groups, which I believe comprise the large majority of the world's Christians, would affirm Luther's position of Scripture alone. But what exactly does Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism identify as normative sources for teaching and practice? And why is this matter so important? >>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Eric, you are, indeed, correct that these two kinds of religious bodies make up the majority of the world's Christians. And you are also correct that neither of them accept the principle of Scripture alone or ***sula scriptura as we call it. Both of them hold that Scripture is not sufficient as the source and the norm for the whole teaching and practice of the church. Although they both recognize the authority of Scripture in their traditional teachings. For Orthodoxy, the normative sources are Scripture and the tradition of the church. That is the teaching of the church handed down from generation to generation. The tradition does affirm the content of Scripture as understood by Orthodoxy. But also the tradition affirms teachings not found in Scripture. That is their claim. As the well-known and respected statement of Eastern Orthodox faith, the Confession of Dositheus puts it: The witness of the church is not of inferior authority to that of the divine Scriptures. For since one and the same Holy Spirit is the author of both, it is quite the same thing to be taught by Scripture and by the church. The church is infallible like Scripture. That's in Decree 2 of this Confession of Dositheus. Orthodoxy says that since the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to I Timothy 3:15, therefore, the church has the gift of infallibly preserving and interpreting Scripture and the oral tradition. And Roman Catholics also teach that same thing on the basis of that particular text. This gift of infallibility belongs to the church as a whole the Orthodox say, being exercised when the bishops of the church speak together. The Orthodox consider it an arrogant presumption for the Pope of Rome or any individual bishop to claim infallibility. And so we can see a difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in the teachings that they both have about the infallibility of the church. Orthodoxy goes onto say that the church spoke as a whole in the seven ecumenical or worldwide councils of the church. Two of these were held at Nicaea in 325 and 787. Three councils were held at Constantinople in 381, 553 and 681. One was held at Ephesus in 431. And one was held at Chalcedon in 451. The most esteemed Council decree is the Nicene Creed. Apostolic tradition has also been preserved in the writings of church fathers and regional church councils which are distinguished from ecumenical church councils because these regional councils were only councils made up from bishops of a certain region. And also the apostolic tradition is preserved in the statements of individual bishops and theologians. But these, which I have been listing just now, do not have a guarantee of infallible freedom from human opinion. And therefore, the Orthodox sometimes differ among themselves over statements that were found in these writings. The Orthodox use these sources to judge the correctness of teachings and teachers. The most famous example is their opposition to the phrase: And the Son, which western Christendom added to the Nicene Creed in the words I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and in the western version the Son. The Orthodox assert that this phrase "and the Son," filioque in the Latin, cannot be proved from either Scripture or tradition. Western theologians have always argued that it can be proved from tradition. For example, where Paul calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son in Galatians 4:6. God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. It would be dangerous and distressing if it were really true that Scripture is not complete or not sufficient for all of our teaching and practice. Or that church teachings must be accepted even if they are not found in Scripture. Holy Scripture indicates to us that this is not the case. And that this is not how we are to use it. II Timothy 3:16 says: All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness that the man of God may be completely equipped for all good works. And in Acts 17 Verse 11, the Christians at Berea are commended because when Paul and Silas came to them preaching the Gospel of Christ, they searched the Scriptures to see if it these things were so. They compared what Paul and Silas were saying with the Old Testament Scriptures. And the prophesies found there. I referred to the fact that the Orthodox, like the Roman Catholics, are fond of using the words of I Timothy 3:15 in connection with all of this. That's the passage which calls the church the pillar and the foundation of the truth. But those words mean simply that the Christian church possesses the truth when it uses the Word of God. And that is where the truth is to be found. And as long as it holds to Scripture, then it is, indeed, supporting the truth. Now, Roman Catholicism also claims that Scripture and tradition are the normative sources of teaching and practice. It says the Scripture and the oral tradition, tradition handed down by word of mouth, by the apostles and passed on by tradition are the apostolic deposit for all teaching and practice. Having been laid down at the beginning of the church's history. And then church authority continuing up to the present time, is the normative principle for determining and unfolding what is really included in this apostolic deposit at the beginning. That is to say for determining what is in that deposit either in explicit statements or in implications only. That is only in an implied form. Some Catholic theologians go so far as to say that all Catholic teaching and practice that we now have on the official level can be found in Scripture, if only in the form of implications. Not explicitly said necessarily. But always implied by what is said. There are others who are not willing to go that far. But who think that some things can be found only outside of Scripture. That is to say in the tradition which is outside of Scripture. Tradition and the official teachings of church councils and popes then contain truths that are not stated in Scripture, at least not in an explicit way. And then also there's something they call private revelations. And these are used as sources of truth which people are urged and encouraged to obey and to believe. But these private revelations are not considered sources for official teaching. And their contents are permitted and allowed and highly regarded in the Catholic Church. But they are not mandated for people to believe and teach. The most well-known example of such private revelations is the statements which the Virgin Mary is alleged to have made in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Roman Catholicism holds that doctrine is to be based on Scripture plus the oral tradition that comes down from the apostles which contains revelation that's not found in Scripture. And that many customs and historical developments are authorized by these oral traditions. Also Roman Catholicism claims that the church has infallible power to decide what the right doctrines are and which really are the doctrines that are to be found in the apostolic deposit. And as this infallible power is exercised through the church councils and through the statements of popes. Lutherans disagree strongly with these claims. Because Lutherans contend that all doctrines to be taught must be proved from Scripture. That's the Scripture alone principle. The argument here by Lutherans is that the Old Testament was considered the final norm of teaching by Jesus. And by the apostles. And the same thing applies then to the New Testament, which is a continuation of the Old Testament Scripture. The Jews claimed that there was oral tradition that was not found in Moses and the prophets and yet was necessary to teach. But Jesus called these traditions the commandments of men which added to the Word of God. You find his statement on that in Mark 7. And Acts 17 tells the story about the Bereans. And I mentioned this before. The Berean people were called noble because they searched the Scriptures to see if the things being said by the apostles were so. Every teaching should be submitted to the norm of Scripture. Now, we have a great respect for tradition because it often contains clear and beautiful statements of Scripture teaching, especially those pieces of tradition that we call the ancient creeds. And we wholeheartedly defend church councils that say what the Bible says. Like the Council of Nicaea. And the Council of Chalcedon in their creedal statements. And we have found many statements of church fathers that recognize this. For example, the statement of Saint Athanasius. The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for all instruction in the truth.