(Almost) All Is Forgiven

[De_Maria]

If you read the article, then you know that they didn’t blindly follow his views.

But they did follow his views. Right or wrong?

Now, this is laughable. I’ve never protested any tradition. I’m too busy for that. In fact, in our brief discussion here, I don’t think I’ve in any way criticized the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the canon of scripture. I have only criticized modern Catholic apologists for setting a different standard for Luther than for others. It is nothing more than polemical.

What is your need to keep dragging Catholics or the Catholic Church into this discussion. We, or at least I, am making the point that Luther acted of his own mind and volition. We are talking about what he did in the Lutheran sphere of his life. You keep bringing the Catholic Church into the discussion. But at some point, Luther was independent of the Catholic Church. Right or wrong?

Additionally, I think I mentioned that I disagreed with his opinion on the DCs. So, please , don’t accuse me of something that I haven’t stated as my view.

[/QUOTE]
I didn’t accuse you of anything. I believe that you disagreed with his opinions and felt you had the right to do so. That is the argument we had in a previous thread where you claimed that Lutherans didn’t have the right to make private decisions on what to believe.

You used your right of private interpretation to decide to disagree with his opinions. I believe you. But this is a right which you claimed that no Lutheran possesses. You even linked me to the Augsburg Confessions as proof.

So, how did you possess a right that no other Lutheran can hold? Did you simply buck the system? But then, you also insinuated that they were fine with your decision to accept the DC’s. So,…?

 

[De_Maria]

Without getting into a dispute as to whether or not Florence was truly ecumenical, I think it is an excellent example of how the majority of the western Church viewed the canon, but clearly Catholics were not prevented from disputing books. This is obvious.

But they were forbidden. It is impossible to prevent anyone from committing error.

I’m not trying to excuse anyone.

It sounds like it to me.

He just happens to be one that did dispute the the position of the DCs. How was he in error? Was he recalled to Rome? I briefly went through the New Advent entry. No mention of disciplinary actions. He was acting on his Catholic liberty.

If he disputed the position of the DC’s, as you claim. He was in error.

Rome had many more problems than one devout Catholic with a misunderstanding of what the canon should be. They had a renegade priest that was dividing the entire Church.

I wasn’t st the protest in 1529, but we did share and continue to share a similar protest now, against the HHS Mandate. Yes, the protest was against civil authorities
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

[/QUOTE]
Sorry, what?

 

[De_Maria]

Evidence of how close our communions are in some respects

True. In fact, many have swum the Tiber already. And retained their identity.

Our Lady of Walsingham Catholic Church - Houston, TX

https://olwcatholic.org/

We are the Principal Church for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter established by the Holy Father to restore the Anglican Patrimony to the Catholic …

 

[JonNC]

But it has obviously been recognized and accepted by the author of that article. So, really, its origins no longer matter. The fact is that they do consider themselves followers of Luther. And, that article simply justifies why they accept Luther’s 66 book canon.

If the origin doesn’t matter, then why do you bring it up?
I don’t think you read the article. Even Luther doesn’t express a 66 book canon , and the author expressly rejects it.

Lol! They have the same 66 books in every Bible they issue. What more do you need?

I have Die Bibel on my shelf, all 74 books of it.

 

[JonNC]

But they did follow his views. Right or wrong?

If you’re asking if Luther was a significant figure in the Evangelical Catholic Reformation, yes! Of course! His views had great influence, but he was not a cult leader, and in terms of theology, Chemnitz may be at least as influential long term

You used your right of private interpretation to decide to disagree with his opinions. I believe you. But this is a right which you claimed that no Lutheran possesses. You even linked me to the Augsburg Confessions as proof.

So did Cajetan. So did Erasmus. Find it in the Lutheran confessions that lists doctrinally or dogmatically a specific canon of scripture. Here’s a hint from the article:
“So it may surprise you to learn that unlike Trent, Westminster, the 39 Articles, etc, there is no definition of the canon of Scripture in the Lutheran Confessions.”

I’ll wait…

 

[JonNC]

Sorry, what?

The protest that coined the name Protestant was a formal protest against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer. It was not against the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church joined a protest against government action under HHS Mandate, part of Obamacare

 

[JonNC]

If he disputed the position of the DC’s, as you claim. He was in error.

Rome had many more problems than one devout Catholic with a misunderstanding of what the canon should be. They had a renegade priest that was dividing the entire Church.

He may very well have been in error, but he was still within his Catholic liberty to hold that view, even as a cardinal. I think it a stretch to say Rome didn’t have time to correct and discipline a rogue cardinal.

 

[JonNC]

You used your right of private interpretation to decide to disagree with his opinions. I believe you. But this is a right which you claimed that no Lutheran possesses. You even linked me to the Augsburg Confessions as proof.

So, how did you possess a right that no other Lutheran can hold? Did you simply buck the system? But then, you also insinuated that they were fine with your decision to accept the DC’s. So,…?

So, was the Blessed Virgin alive or dead when she was assumed? As a Catholic, you may hold a private view regarding it. I can now accuse all Catholics of exercising private interpretation.

But that’s not typically what we mean. When we talk about private interpretation we are usually talking about doctrine. So, of you want to expand that topic, we can , but then you probably practice a significant amount, too. Every tradition has things that are left up to the believer to decide. Some refer to it as adiaphora.

In the Lutheran setting, there is no doctrinal or dogmatic list of canonical books, so people are permitted to hold views about the disputed books. And it really doesn’t matter because, as the article states, it really only has an impact on determining doctrine, which the laity doesn’t do.

 

[De_Maria]

If the origin doesn’t matter, then why do you bring it up?
I don’t think you read the article. Even Luther doesn’t express a 66 book canon , and the author expressly rejects it.

What do you mean by “canon”?

Do you believe that a book is a part of the canon of the Word of God, simply because it’s bound up in the Bible?

What I’m saying is that Luther denied the inspiration of 7 of the books which he bound in his bible. He only considered 66 of them to be the Word of God. Now, you can argue that he also rejected 5 books of the NT. But in that alternative, the Lutheran’s did not follow his opinions.

I have Die Bibel on my shelf, all 74 books of it.

How many of those books do the Lutheran’s consider inspired?

 

[De_Maria]

And it really doesn’t matter because, as the article states, it really only has an impact on determining doctrine, which the laity doesn’t do.

Ok. What is a “High Church” Lutheran? And what is the difference between them and the alternative? From what I gather, from discussions between former Lutherans, there are actually, at a minimum, three variants. High Church, middle and low.

We can compare the difference between these three choices which apparently can be made by Lutheran laypeople. And the choices available to Catholics. How’s that?

 

[JonNC]

What do you mean by “canon”?

Do you believe that a book is a part of the canon of the Word of God, simply because it’s bound up in the Bible?

A book can be canonical if it is used liturgically.
Canon means rule. A book, yes, can be considered canon in that sense.

What I’m saying is that Luther denied the inspiration of 7 of the books which he bound in his bible. He only considered 66 of them to be the Word of God. Now, you can argue that he also rejected 5 books of the NT. But in that alternative, the Lutheran’s did not follow his opinions.

In almost every instance, Luther is clear that he is stating his opinion, an opinion not unique to him.

How many of those books do the Lutheran’s consider inspired?

The Lutheran confessions do not establish such a list, but instead view and use each book based its historical standing: affirmed, disputed, rejected.
I thought you read the article.

 

[De_Maria]

A book can be canonical if it is used liturgically.
Canon means rule. A book, yes, can be considered canon in that sense.

So, the Lutherans use books, in the Liturgy, which they do not consider to be the word of God?
I’ll have to leave that under my hat a while and let it simmer. There is something extremely wrong with that picture, but I can’t find the words to express it.

In almost every instance, Luther is clear that he is stating his opinion, an opinion not unique to him.

An opinion which was accepted by his followers.

The Lutheran confessions do not establish such a list,
I thought you read the article.

What?!!! Lutheran’s don’t have an opinion about which books of the Bible are inspired? They literally revere the contents of a book which, in their opinion, may or may not be from God?

Jon, are you thinking this through?

but instead view and use each book based its historical standing: affirmed, disputed, rejected.

Historical? What does that mean? They don’t accept the historical standing from Catholic Church authority. So, whose history do they purport to accept?

 

[JonNC]

So, the Lutherans use books, in the Liturgy, which they do not consider to be the word of God?

I’ll have to leave that under my hat a while and let it simmer. There is something extremely wrong with that picture, but I can’t find the words to express it.

Really? Is there something wrong with using the creeds, too?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, the Lutherans use books, in the Liturgy, which they do not consider to be the word of God?

I’ll have to leave that under my hat a while and let it simmer. There is something extremely wrong with that picture, but I can’t find the words to express it.

Really? Is there something wrong with using the creeds, too?

The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, considers the Creeds to be the Word of God. The Nicene Creed was developed in the Council of Nicea, an ecumenical Council.

 

[JonNC]

Historical? What does that mean? They don’t accept the historical standing from Catholic Church authority. So, whose history do they purport to accept?

If you want to disregard the many fathersbof the Church and their various views, fine

 

[De_Maria]

If you want to disregard the many fathersbof the Church and their various views, fine

Well, I want you to notice

1. that you’ve dragged the Catholic Church back into this.
2. you seem to want to excuse Luther’s decisions. As though you consider all his decisions, the Catholic Church’s fault.

Was Luther ever responsible for anything that he did, in your opinion? Or do you just acknowledge that which you think was good but ignore all that was wrong?

I’d like to focus on Luther and what his followers did after him. But you don’t. Why?

 

[JonNC]

If you want to disregard the many fathersbof the Church and their various views, fine

Well, I want you to notice

that you’ve dragged the Catholic Church back into this.
you seem to want to excuse Luther’s decisions. As though you consider all his decisions, the Catholic Church’s fault.

I already told you I disagree with his opinion. You really seem to be struggling to follow along.
I also get the feeling you didn’t understand the article because you keep asking questions it answers

 

[JonNC]

I’d like to focus on Luther and what his followers did after him. But you don’t. Why?

The article really will help you with that

 

[De_Maria]

I already told you I disagree with his opinion. You really seem to be struggling to follow along.
I also get the feeling you didn’t understand the article because you keep asking questions it answers

We’ve read many of the same books, beginning with the Bible. And each of us seems to get a different message from them. Does that mean that you don’t understand what you’re reading? Or am I to be blamed?

Anyway, we’re going in circles and you don’t seem to get the point I’m making. Thanks for the discussion. Bye.