a-call-for-ecuminical-dialogue-between-catholics-and-protestants

[joe370]

Ok, I’ll bite, only because I’m the curious type. Why give assent to the Magisterium?

Jon

Hey Jon. Well, the main reason I do is because I came to believe that the CC is the one church established by Jesus circa 33 AD, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem. If I am right and the CC is Jesus’ church (“I will build my church…”) and He continues to ineffably guide His church in matters of faith and doctrinal truth, as per the NT, then naturally I would want everyone to belong to Jesus’ catholic church. I could be wrong but it just feels so right…Of course, you know me, I love all churches.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Firstly, I invoke the disclaimer at the bottom of my signature.
Second, I think it’s naive to assert that all Protestants are ignorant. Karl Barth, one of the most important theologians of the 20th century (next to Henri DeLubac) was a Reformed theologian–one that even Pope Pius XII acclaimed. Theological systems are ultimately the point of contention, not the moral-intellectual character of a person (although there is some of that, too).

Actually, I am in no way saying that Protestants are ignorant of Theology. There have been good Theologians in the Protestant camp. Even Calvin, was a great Theologian though tended to take the opposite position from the Church.

The issue here is that Protestants do not bother to answer the question “why give assent to the Theological framework in the first place?”. Because if there is no reason to give assent to the Theological framework, it is just an exercise of the intellect but may not be reflective of any actual truth.

The Protestants, and all other religions, in skipping or acting without much critical thought in this important step, embrace a religion that contains error together with whatever good/truth their arbitrary religion might contain. In this sense, most of the world’s population, including some Catholics who have never asked these things, are ignorant. Lucky part for Catholics is that they are already in the right one. So its not an issue, unless they want to explain to someone else why they should be Catholic, that they do not know why they have given assent to the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10111125]Well, before we proceed, there is something very important that you need to understand. If Protestantism has no reason and it does turn out that there is no reason to assent to the Magisterium as well, then it does not mean you can remain Protestant. Do you realize that?

I do not realize any such thing. As a Lutheran I remian a member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let me put forth my caveat: there are three (positive)circumstances whereby I will submit to the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium:

1. The reconciliation of our communions.
2. The reconciliation of the Bishop of Rome with the Orthodox patriarchs
3. A simple acceptance by the Bishop of Rome that the Augsburg Confession is a truly Catholic confession of the catholic faith.

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

I do not realize any such thing. As a Lutheran I remian a member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let me put forth my caveat: there are three (positive)circumstances whereby I will submit to the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium:

1. The reconciliation of our communions.
2. The reconciliation of the Bishop of Rome with the Orthodox patriarchs
3. A simple acceptance by the Bishop of Rome that the Augsburg Confession is a truly Catholic confession of the catholic faith.

Jon

I honestly do not know what you are talking about here. My position is simple. If religion X cannot provide reason to think that it contains knowledge of the Transcendent, then it is not worthy of assent.

All these points above are honestly irrelevant. Especially (1) and (2). These would just be arbitrary theological constraints that you constructed.

So in the event that Lutheran faith cannot give reason for assent, it is simply unworthy of assent by anyone. Catholic False does not equal Lutheran True.

 

[joe370]

Well, before we proceed, there is something very important that you need to understand. If Protestantism has no reason and it does turn out that there is no reason to assent to the Magisterium as well, then it does not mean you can remain Protestant. Do you realize that?

You and I will simply have to start searching for the truth.

This is why most non-catholics (not Jon) assent and defer to their bible alone, in terms of discerning truth. This of course makes each and every sola scriptura advocate the final authority which is not scriptural or logical, in terms of discerning truth. Can you imagine if this same approach was used with the Constitution of the United States?

 

[joe370]

I honestly do not know what you are talking about here. My position is simple. If religion X cannot provide reason to think that it contains knowledge of the Transcendent, then it is not worthy of assent.

All these points above are honestly irrelevant. Especially (1) and (2). These would just be arbitrary theological constraints that you constructed.

So in the event that Lutheran faith cannot give reason for assent, it is simply unworthy of assent by anyone. Catholic False does not equal Lutheran True.

I think it all comes down to having faith that you have located the church established by God, as opposed to a mere man. Seems reasonable I suppose…:twocents:

 

[Eufrosnia]

This is why most non-catholics (not Jon) assent and defer to their bible alone, in terms of discerning truth. This of course makes each and every sola scriptura advocate the final authority which is not scriptural or logical, in terms of discerning truth. Can you imagine if this same approach was used with the Constitution of the United States?

Well, one could say the US constitution is starting to use something similar these days.

But the problem again for Protestants is that they must give reason for assenting to a particular book (books to be accurate) as THE Word of God. This not possible under Protestantism.

Something quiet humorous though is that if you ask this question, you will find many Protestants start quoting Scripture passages to prove it is the Word of God. The problem however is that until the authority of Scripture is proven, the quotes themselves mean nothing.

 

[joe370]

I do not realize any such thing. As a Lutheran I remian a member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let me put forth my caveat: there are three (positive)circumstances whereby I will submit to the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium:

1. The reconciliation of our communions.
2. The reconciliation of the Bishop of Rome with the Orthodox patriarchs
3. A simple acceptance by the Bishop of Rome that the Augsburg Confession is a truly Catholic confession of the catholic faith.

Jon

Sadly, I cannot envision those 3 things happening… But, you never know…

 

[Eufrosnia]

I think it all comes down to having faith that you have located the church established by God, as opposed to a mere man. Seems reasonable I suppose…:twocents:

Well this position is actually not reasonable. Because all religions are important for their Transcendent knowledge. No one embraces religion because it can predict the weather tomorrow. Rather, people accept religion for its truths regarding salvation, sin, heaven, hell etc all of which are not verifiable in this life.

What this means is that to give assent, one must indeed be sure of the authority of the person/book one is giving assent to. In the Protestant case, things are somewhat nice in that they have chosen to give assent to Christ. BUT, Christ lived among us physically in 33 AD. He no longer walks around us teaching us directly. So a Protestant cannot know anything about what Christ taught let alone whether he wanted there to be a book called the Bible.

If one is very critical, one could even say that though we know Christ is the one to assent to, it is certainly not clear at that point if Christ is even the son of God UNTIL assent.

 

[JonNC]

I honestly do not know what you are talking about here. My position is simple. If religion X cannot provide reason to think that it contains knowledge of the Transcendent, then it is not worthy of assent.

All these points above are honestly irrelevant. Especially (1) and (2). These would just be arbitrary theological constraints that you constructed.

So in the event that Lutheran faith cannot give reason for assent, it is simply unworthy of assent by anyone. Catholic False does not equal Lutheran True.

Or vise versa. And mine are not arbitrary in the least, particularly #2. A reconciliation of Rome and the east would be confirmation, regardless of its outcome, that the understanding of Nicea canon 6 is confirmed. Either it says that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is one of honor, or it is universal. But either way, you posed the claim that I am following the dumb layman as opposed to the learned Doctor, so proceed if you wish.

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Or vise versa. And mine are not arbitrary in the least, particularly #2. A reconciliation of Rome and the east would be confirmation, regardless of its outcome, that the understanding of Nicea canon 6 is confirmed. Either it says that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is one of honor, or it is universal. But either way, you posed the claim that I am following the dumb layman as opposed to the learned Doctor, so proceed if you wish.

Jon

Ok Jon, I have no clue what you are talking about.

To speak of Rome as anything important is meaningless unless you already give assent to a certain theological framework. I am arguing here about justifying ones assent to a theological framework when you are arguing theology.

 

[JonNC]

Well, one could say the US constitution is starting to use something similar these days.

But the problem again for Protestants is that they must give reason for assenting to a particular book (books to be accurate) as THE Word of God. This not possible under Protestantism.

Something quiet humorous though is that if you ask this question, you will find many Protestants start quoting Scripture passages to prove it is the Word of God. The problem however is that until the authority of Scripture is proven, the quotes themselves mean nothing.

Actually, as a Lutheran, I accept the premise that the undivided Church compiled and determined thatc which is attested, disputed, and rejected. in fac, Lutheran use of scripture reflects this historic tension regarding the disputed books, in a very conservative way. Is this where you are going?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Ok Jon, I have no clue what you are talking about.

To speak of Rome as anything important is meaningless unless you already give assent to a certain theological framework. I am arguing here about justifying ones assent to a theological framework when you are arguing theology.

Then, perhaps, you should lay out your premise, since it appears we are talking past each other.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Eufrosnia;10111159]Well, one could say the US constitution is starting to use something similar these days.

I did not know that…

But the problem again for Protestants is that they must give reason for assenting to a particular book (books to be accurate) as THE Word of God. This not possible under Protestantism.

You know, atheists say the same thing to me, as a practising catholic e.g. the problem for catholics is that they must give a reason for assenting to a particular book (books to be accurate) as THE Word of God.What would you say to those folks? I certainly cannot prove it…

…Protestants start quoting Scripture passages to prove it is the Word of God. The problem however is that until the authority of Scripture is proven, the quotes themselves mean nothing.

Agreed. As I have mentioned before, the sola scriptura advocate (again, not Jon) does not believe that anyone has the authority, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to inerrantly interpret scripture, discern truth, or resolve doctrinal differences when they occur, just as the CC did so long ago e.g. Trinitarian dogma, the codification of the holy Bible etc…These things weighed heavy on me as a former non-catholic…

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. Well, the main reason I do is because I came to believe that the CC is the one church established by Jesus circa 33 AD, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem. If I am right and the CC is Jesus’ church (“I will build my church…”) and He continues to ineffably guide His church in matters of faith and doctrinal truth, as per the NT, then naturally I would want everyone to belong to Jesus’ catholic church. I could be wrong but it just feels so right…Of course, you know me, I love all churches.

I know you came to this conclusion, Joe, and as you know, in some ways, knowing you came out of Lutheranism, I kind of envy you.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Well this position is actually not reasonable. Because all religions are important for their Transcendent knowledge. No one embraces religion because it can predict the weather tomorrow. Rather, people accept religion for its truths regarding salvation, sin, heaven, hell etc all of which are not verifiable in this life

.

Makes sense. Perhaps church affiliation is irrelevant? All churches, regardless of denomination, are also important for their transcendent knowledge.

What this means is that to give assent, one must indeed be sure of the authority of the person/book one is giving assent to. In the Protestant case, things are somewhat nice in that they have chosen to give assent to Christ. BUT, Christ lived among us physically in 33 AD. He no longer walks around us teaching us directly. So a Protestant cannot know anything about what Christ taught let alone whether he wanted there to be a book called the Bible.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You know, atheists say the same thing to me, as a practising catholic e.g. the problem for catholics is that they must give a reason for assenting to a particular book (books to be accurate) as THE Word of God.What would you say to those folks? I certainly cannot prove it…

Oh and they are absolutely spot on.

First a word about the position of Atheism is unreasonable in that they give assent to the proposition “There is no transcendent”. Such a thing is not worthy of assent without reason. Ironically, Atheist claim such is true due to development of Science. But since Science cannot verify the Transcendent by definition, Science cannot prove or give reasons for its non-existence. At this point, the Atheist might say that “we can ignore the transcendent till there is direct evidence for it”. But that too is a foundation of Science. Since the transcendent is outside of Science, such scientific philosophies do not apply.

Now as for the question, it is most certainly valid. The reason why most Atheist are scandalized away from religion is because so many people try to insist that they must just have faith. That is unreasonable and hence turns people off.

Agreed. As I have mentioned before, the sola scriptura advocate (again, not Jon) does not believe that anyone has the authority, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to inerrantly interpret scripture, discern truth, or resolve doctrinal differences when they occur, just as the CC did so long ago e.g. Trinitarian dogma, the codification of the holy Bible etc…These things weighed heavy on me as a former non-catholic…

Yes. So ideally, a seeker will have to trace some reasons to transfer the authority/reasons for assent from Jesus → Apostles → Apostolic Successors. At that point one can assent to the Catholic Church plus all its teachings (Scripture, Traditions, Laws) etc.

 

[Anthony_V]

I do not realize any such thing. As a Lutheran I remian a member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let me put forth my caveat: there are three (positive)circumstances whereby I will submit to the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium:

1. The reconciliation of our communions.
2. The reconciliation of the Bishop of Rome with the Orthodox patriarchs
3. A simple acceptance by the Bishop of Rome that the Augsburg Confession is a truly Catholic confession of the catholic faith.

Jon

Jon,
I like your list and its succinctness. I will spend the rest of my life working on the first two propositions for people like you!

 

[joe370]

Eufrosnia;10111219]Oh and they are absolutely spot on.

First a word about the position of Atheism is unreasonable in that they give assent to the proposition “There is no transcendent”. Such a thing is not worthy of assent without reason. Ironically, Atheist claim such is true due to development of Science. But since Science cannot verify the Transcendent by definition, Science cannot prove or give reasons for its non-existence. At this point, the Atheist might say that “we can ignore the transcendent till there is direct evidence for it”. But that too is a foundation of Science. Since the transcendent is outside of Science, such scientific philosophies do not apply.

Very true. It definitely takes more faith to be an atheist, in my opinion.

Now as for the question, it is most certainly valid. The reason why most Atheist are scandalized away from religion is because so many people try to insist that they must just have faith. That is unreasonable and hence turns people off.

:yup:

Yes. So ideally, a seeker will have to trace some reasons to transfer the authority/reasons for assent from Jesus → Apostles → Apostolic Successors. At that point one can assent to the Catholic Church plus all its teachings (Scripture, Traditions, Laws) etc.

That was the path that I took… In my humble opinion, apostolic succession (unbroken that is) is the way the holy Spirit continues to Guide Jesus’ catholic church.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Then, perhaps, you should lay out your premise, since it appears we are talking past each other.

Jon

So ok. You have all these theological frameworks on the planet that claim knowledge on the Transcendent. Lutheranism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc.

The question for us is, which one is true. Now since this knowledge is Transcendent, it is obviously outside of direct verification. Hence the best we can do, or most reasonable we can become, is to analyze the founders of each of these faith and see if anyone gives reason to assent.

Once one has done that and found such a person (in both our cases, this person is Christ), we need to figure out how to learn what Christ taught. We live 2000 years after him. All we know of at this point is his authority proven by his death and resurrection. At least for the sake of living forever, he is our best bet.

But we need to know what he taught. The question for both you and me, is how do you go from Christ to the Bible, Book of Concord or Catholic Church. It is on this plain that I am discussing this issue. Not theology.