TMCP #68 / Sola Apostolica / With Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics

[@etheretherether]

Excellent interview. I really appreciate this formulation of what is essentially an alternative "sola". One quibble is that the point in regards to Peter seems a little week. Ultimately what I really love here is the shift of focus on scripture from epistemology to ontology. Scripture is the deposit of the apostolic faith is far superior to the "fallible list of infallible books" concept. The analogy of communion is extremely interesting to me, and I would like to see that taken further. Are there times when scripture ceases to be scripture? Does having orthodox faith play a role in receiving, translating, or interpreting scripture and to what degree is that similar to the reception or distribution of communion?

[@TheOtherPaul]

Eeeexcellent interview. I'm amazed at the convergence of different people independently spawning similar or identical concepts. Before meeting Sean and learning of his Sola Apostolica concept, I had coined the idea of Solo Verbo Dei; basically the same idea, incl. the emphasis on the oral teaching the Apostles/God sharing the divine protection that the Scriptures enjoy. We really need to work this angle.

[@merecatholicity]

Thanks for watching. I totally agree!

[@danielhixon8209]

Gentlemen, I have discovered both of your channels fairly recently as I’ve been looking for more quality Anglican content, and so it was a pleasant surprise to find you collaborating. Good stuff.

[@merecatholicity]

Blessings! Thanks for tuning in.

[@benjamincolson]

I enjoyed listening to this. This is definitely superior to the usual Protestant take of Sola Scriptura, because it attempts to take seriously the fact that the first century Church was not operating on the principle of Sola Scriptura. And I also hope that these historic Christian communions continue to work towards reconciliation in our lifetimes, without us killing each other haha! Just one small point of correction: the Orthodox don't believe that being under the jurisdiction of a Patriarchate is a necessary mark of the Church, because we have a 2000 year history of recognizing autocephalous archdioceses as a part of the Orthodox Church. To us, the boundaries of the Church are both heirarchical and intercommunal, meaning that one has to be under a bishop with apostolic succession, who is in turn in communion with the rest of the Church. This gets messy in terms of historical realities, because you can have two bishops excommunicate one another, but simultaneously be in communion with a third bishop, and so are joined by this tangential communion, but the reason that we affirm this is that we believe that the bishops have the power to bind and loose, which includes the power to excommunicate, which removes someone from the Church. If this were not the case, then Arius, Nestorius, and all the other famous heretics would still be valid bishops after their excommunication, and their churches still fully valid churches. Now, often, these schismatic churches are still treated as having valid sacraments, so salvation is still possible for those within them, but only at the behest of their theological confessions that led to the excommunication (for a good example of this today, look at how the Orthodox treat the miaphysite "Oriental" church). In the case of Rome (and thereby also the Anglicans), we would simply say that they went into schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and communion between the two groups has yet to be re-established, so they cannot be said to fully be a part of the Church, even if they have valid sacraments. And I think for that to happen, the Roman Catholics would have to walk back several of their definitive teachings, such as Papal Infallibility, and the Anglicans would have to sort out their women's ordination problem, and unfortunately I don't see either of these things happening soon, but may the Lord have mercy on us all. Oh, and Sean, if you read this, I'm curious what you think that the ecumenical councils have erred on, which is what it sounds like you said at 6:55. You just briefly mentioned that, but later, you seem to defend the theology of Nicaea II, so I'm just curious what you do see as having erred.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Hey--just seeing this! Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that the Orthodox think that being under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople is a necessary mark of the church. So yeah, which part of an ecumenical council erred? The only part, I think, Nicea II got wrong (and this so, potentially) is the anathematization of those who don't honor icons. I think the positive content of the synodikon is good and to be accepted--icons are to be honored and used in churches. But I can't wrap my mind around the notion that iconoclasts are reprobate solely for being iconoclasts, given that Gavin Ortlund has (in my judgment) shown that there were many fathers in the first five centuries that were iconoclasts.

[@etheretherether]

@@anglicanaesthetics I know I'm just regurgitating Earth and Altars / Lord of Spirits here, but I think it's worth questioning whether the anathemetizations are ecumenically binding to all churches or not, since the primary purpose of anathema is for pastoral correction of errant bishops, and not for the individual excommunication of laity. I wonder if the distinction between ecumenical decrees of "this is the apostolic faith" and non-ecumenical decrees of "this is being done as a pastoral measure" is a distinction that ought to be brought to light more often. Examples of this that I can think of are the rules regarding celibacy for Catholic priests (Lateran II) in the West and the prohibition of Agnus Dei iconography in the East (Trullo).

[@felixiusbaqi]

I like the idea of sola apostolica as an alternative to sola scriptura. You lost me a bit at applying the “good and necessary consequence” paradigm. I feel like a Roman apologist could make strong arguments that most of their doctrines follow from some point of apostolic doctrine by good and necessary consequence and the Protestant is forced back into the prima/sola scripture position.

[@James_McKay]

The audio balance was a bit off on this one. Still going to watch because the content of the interview seems interesting so far.

[@merecatholicity]

Yes. Due to some connectivity issues on Sean Luke's end, I had to use software I don't typically use for recording which would not allow me to balance audio like I try to do in other episodes. Thanks for bearing with us and listening anyways!

[@TheOtherPaul]

Not as bad as when Jonah had me on 😅

[@merecatholicity]

@@TheOtherPaul LOL. True.