Catholic vs Protestant Spirituality: Lets compare faith walks

[Michael16]

This has been an interesting and fruitful discussion, Ianman87. Thank you.

To address the Tradition question:

Catholic teaching is a synthesis of Tradition and Scripture. A mutual cross reference. Think of the confluence as two mutually supporting pillars. And it’s not as fluid as you perceive it to be.

Now Tradition came before Scripture and is composed of the oral and written teaching of the Church; securely based on the Apostles and the Deposit of Faith. One way to look at Tradition is as commentary and teaching based on the Apostles and the Deposit. Plus, it’s the living practice of the Faith as you see in the lives of the saints and Popes that contributed to it.

A lot like the traditions built up by the Protestant founders: Interpretations, commentary and teaching along the lines set by the founders.

Looking at it like this: The Protestant founders built up and passed down a tradition based on the authority that they claimed for themselves.

In essence: Protestants have their own tradition and Scripture structure in which they interpret and teach.

You addressed the Gnostic heresy; cool. The Gnostics taught that the God of the OT was an evil demiurge that sought to imprison souls and that Jesus preached the message of the NT God that was the Creator of the OT God. They were handily dealt with by, I want to say; the 2nd or 3rd centuries.

The major heresy around the time of the codification of Scripture was the Arians. They taught that Jesus wasn’t God; only a human that was adopted by God at His Baptism.

I’m not sure if the Arians was the reason behind the codification of Scripture. That was a separate Council from the Council that addressed the Arian heresy.

In the battles with heresies, you see the Church taking the forefront in confronting them and not the body of the faithful as a whole.

Christ established the Church with Saint Peter as the head with the authority to exercise it, to shepherd us in our Faith. “ Feed My sheep. “ Is what He said. Without the visible Church and it’s authority; we’re lost and listless in a sea of contending interpretations and outright heresies.

In my understanding of Protestants is that they didn’t really return to the Deposit of Faith. If they returned to the Deposit, they wouldn’t be saying things that contradict what the Apostles actually taught.

 

[Michael16]

I like your additional research attitude and I’m glad you’re taking me up on my invitation. Thank you.

Btw: The author’s name is Jamie Blosser.

When I read your reply, I came into a question: In the ECF matter, why not take into consideration the entirety of their corpus? That, and the ECFs wrote what they did in the context of their understanding of Scripture and Tradition. I see that especially in Saint Augustine’s Confessions.

In my understanding, solid research takes into account the entire corpus in their context and the historical conditions at that moment in time.

From my perspective, it’s my understanding that Luther extensively referenced and quoted Saint Augustine.

 

[Hodos]

I may not have a chance to get around to it for a while. I have an extensive reading list at home I am working through (currently working on two books for enjoyment/enrichment) while simultaneously teaching catechism and starting back up on my course requirements for deacon formation. But I will keep it in mind.

 

[Michael16]

Cool. An additional question, I may:

My family’s ELCA pastor told my family that Luther was trying to get people to stay in the Church. From your perspective, is that true?

 

[Hodos]

Luther’s intention was never to leave the Church. His intention was to get rid of doctrines and practices that obscured the teaching of the gospel. The 95 Theses for example wasn’t a rant against the Church. It was a rant against the practices of indulgence sales that were confusing people into thinking that they didn’t have to repent of their sin. If you read Luther, he was adamant that people belong in the Church where the word is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly administered.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I may not have a chance to get around to it for a while. I have an extensive reading list at home I am working through (currently working on two books for enjoyment/enrichment) while simultaneously teaching catechism and starting back up on my course requirements for deacon formation. But I will keep it in mind.

It’s hard to find time for enough reading as an adult

Occasionally I think about leaving the engineering world to go get a PhD in history or philosophy or something, just so I can read all the time. Then I remember that I like not being broke.

 

[Hodos]

It’s hard to find time for enough reading as an adult

Occasionally I think about leaving the engineering world to go get a PhD in history or philosophy or something, just so I can read all the time. Then I remember that I like not being broke.

LOL I hear you.

 

[Michael16]

Hello Hodos.

What you’ve wrote and the pastor’s words bother me.

Now, I’ve read the 95 Theses and they’re a direct attack on both the Sacrament of Confession itself and the papal authority to confer Absolution in it. Not just on the selling of indulgences themselves.

I’ve also read his Address to the Nobility of the German Nation. In it, he called upon the German princes to rise up against the Pope, calling him the Antichrist; with him. He even called the Church the Whore of Babylon.

He also wrote letters to people that urged them to interpret the Bible as he did, urging them to join his movement; including inviting Erasmus of Rotterdam. He turned on him furiously when Erasmus turned him down.

He also wrote books in which he detailed his doctrines. Heck, he even added the word alone to Saint Paul; altering Sacred Scripture to make it say faith alone.
He removed seven books from the OT and would have removed Saints Jude and James, Hebrews and Revelation from the NT.

Considering all of this activity and vitriolic abuse of the Church and the Holy Father; how can this be described as anything but urging people to take up his ideas and leaving the Church?

If he believed the Church rightly taught the Word of God and the Sacraments; then all of this activity and abuse would be pointless.

None of his actions suggest to me that he urged people to stay in the Church or believed that the Church taught the Word or the Sacraments correctly.

His actions scream the opposite.

 

[Hodos]

Considering all of this activity and vitriolic abuse of the Church and the Holy Father; how can this be described as anything but urging people to take up his ideas and leaving the Church?

Refer to our confessions regarding what the Church actually is and you will understand. In Luther’s context, the Church was teaching false doctrine and allowing for abusive practice that obscured the gospel. If Paul is willing to call certain teachings that violated his gospel as doctrines of demons, certainly, this is not out of scope if doctrine and practice is obscuring that gospel. When you read the 95 Theses it is evident that Luther is responding to the claims that the indulgence hawkers were making, some of which are absolutely blasphemous (I refer you to theses 75 and 77 for example). It is not wonder he was incensed by these claims. However, when he raised the issue, not only did no one engage in the academic debate that he sought, the Pope backed the men making these claims! In that context, Luther is not wrong in his characterization of what was going on in the Church in his day.

With regard to the Address to the German Nobility, at this point, the issues Luther was raising were not addressed for going on 4 years. His point was that if the Church is so corrupt that it will not reform false doctrine and will not reform abusive waste and practice, then the lay people as Christians have the duty to reform the Church. I agree with this principle. So for example, if the Church doesn’t get its act together in curbing and covering over the sex scandals which have rocked it, it is entirely appropriate that the secular authorities step in and prosecute those who are guilty until order is restored. This is essentially what Luther was attempting to do in his Letter To The German Nobility.

With regard to Luther’s translation of Romans, I am good with it because it accurately reflects the message that Paul has already stated three times prior to that verse where he contrasts faith against works in the process of justification, and has already said that we are justified by faith apart from works. The alone part means, without works, as Paul stated three times previously. I would remind you that Pope Francis has no issue with translating the Lord’s Prayer for clarification even though it is very different than actually worded in the Greek manuscripts, so this appears to be an acceptable practice in your own communion. I would appreciate the use of even scales here.

With removal of books, no he didn’t. This is historically verifiable. His Bible had all of the NT canon, and contained the aprocryphal works listed as the deuterocanonicals, just as Jerome originally did. Again, I would appreciate the use of even scales.

Again though, your definition of what constitutes the Church appears to be the impediment to understanding. I refer to the AC, Paragraphs VII and VIII. Everything Luther ever wrote urged people to be part of the body of the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly delivered.

 

[Hodos]

Going back to the sacrament of confession, I think you are misreading Luther’a point. He was not saying the Church could not forgive sins. He was saying the Church could not just forgive the unrepentant who were buying plenary indulgences. He was saying you don’t have the authority to grant a get out of jail free card. He wanted people to go through the process of Confession and Absolution. Far from making a mockery of the sacrament, he was defending it!

 

[Michael16]

I think I see a point that needs clarification my friend.

Indulgences aren’t “ get out of hell free “ cards. Indulgences remove the time spent in Purgatory cleansing the soul of its attachments to sin. Purgatory isn’t hell.

Confession and Absolution are required for forgiveness of sins, thus saving one from hell.

I hope that resolves that issue.

The next problem I see is that you have gone from Luther believing that the Church taught the Word of God and administered the Sacraments rightly to that the Church was so corrupt; she had to be forcibly reformed by revolutionary action.

Please, Hodos: Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Revolution isn’t reform. Your definition of reform is like claiming Lenin and the Bolsheviks reformed the Kerensky government by overthrowing it from below.

It’s not the duty of the laity to overthrow the Church.

The Church is the laity, above which is the priest, then the bishop and then the Holy Father himself and ultimately Jesus.

That’s the defined structure of the Church from Scripture.

Actual reformers reform the system from within: Peacefully and reasonably without schism and revolution. For examples of actual reformers within the Church; I invite you to look at Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Ignatius de Loyola, Saint Teresa de Avila and Saint John of the Cross.

As for Luther’s view of the canon: True, he did keep the deuterocanonical books in his Bible. In a separate section he labeled Apocrypha; describing them as uninspired but good and useful to read. That altered the canon.

As for the NT: True, he didn’t remove any books from the canon. He simply put Saints Jude and James, Hebrews out of their original places in the Bible and left them in an appendix at the end. While exhorting people to consider the the chief books that cut out Saints James and Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

It was his contemporaries in his movement that thought altering the NT was going too far; even for them.

It’s important to note that Saint James, the book he called the “ Epistle of Straw “, as it clearly shoots down his faith alone error; is not considered of the chief books he wanted his followers to focus on.

To alter faith apart to faith alone completely changes the context of the passage and really the entire meaning of the text.

Faith apart from works is VERY, I’m all capping for emphasis; distinct from faith alone from works. That interpolation changes everything. Then sets Saint Paul in conflict with Saint James.

Then, I remember: Luther wanted to get rid of Saint James, but his contemporaries wouldn’t let him.

So, that interpolation entirely discredits Luther as a Biblical translator and exegete. Once that happens, his entire doctrine is then discredited and falls apart.

As for even scales: Luther made drastic changes in Biblical canon and doctrine; completely altering meanings. Whereas the Holy Father Pope Francis changed one little word that really doesn’t alter the fundamental meaning of the Our Father.

The Pope has authority. Luther did not. Who should I believe? The Holy Father who’s authority is God given in Scripture or some theology professor?

I choose the Holy Father.

 

[Hodos]

Not trying to have it both ways. Issues were raised. There was no reform from the Church. We chose to uphold truth. We were ex-communicates for doing so. We still refuse to compromise a true confession for convenience. We chose obedience to Christ over tradition. Im comfortable with that.

 

[Michael16]

I respect that you believe that.

But when you take an unbiased and reasoned view of the facts; the inconsistencies and errors will reveal themselves to you and the truth found only in the Church speaks very eloquently for itself.

I know it did in my case.

As for your claims of no reform in the Church; I invite you to research for yourself and see the results. The truth speaks for itself, my friend.

 

[mikie11b]

Funny you should mention that… I just got done talking to the religious education folks in my parish as I was signing up to help with RCIA. They recommend I do the same thing.
I am asking the Holy Spirit for guidance.

 

[Minks]

@Hodos

In Luther’s context, the Church was teaching false doctrine and allowing for abusive practice that obscured the gospel.

When you read the 95 Theses it is evident that Luther is responding to the claims that the indulgence hawkers were making, some of which are absolutely blasphemous (I refer you to theses 75 and 77 for example). It is not wonder he was incensed by these claims. However, when he raised the issue, not only did no one engage in the academic debate that he sought, the Pope backed the men making these claims!

Everything Luther ever wrote urged people to be part of the body of the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly delivered.

But how can a discerning person come to religiously follow a man with the scatalogical vitriol that spewed from the mouth and writing of Luther? How can anyone, even momentarily, see anything remotely like holiness or religiosity in such a man?

He refused time and time again the opportunity to meet with the Pope to discuss change. He urged that certain peoples be stripped of their possessions, essentially to be at the mercy of alms or die. He vehemently advocated killing people. He said that women who didn’t want to have sex with their husbands should be forced to do so by the state or be executed.

If the 95 Theses delineated blasphemy within the Church by mere men, not by Church teachings, then what did Luther’s own words and actions delineate?
How could such a creature be a man of God? How could anyone follow such depravity?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Lenten_ashes:

That the church is actually teaching error.

Didn’t the church used to teach that you could buy and sell indulgences? I would say that is pretty erroneous.

That sort of thing is not what is referred to as a teaching in this sense.

It is actually the case that the Church can offer indulgences for monetary contributions and there’s nothing wrong with that per se. This practice was abused and discontinued. This was a matter of discipline, not of doctrine. The Church is only considered to be protected from error in its teachings on faith and morals, not in every one of its practices.

 

[Hodos]

But how can a discerning person come to religiously follow a man with the scatalogical vitriol that spewed from the mouth and writing of Luther? How can anyone, even momentarily, see anything remotely like holiness or religiosity in such a man?

Evidently you have never read Paul’s letter to the Galatians, or Ezekiel. God has indeed used very harsh language at times. Also, I am not a follower of Luther, I am a follower of Christ. It wasn’t even our name for ourselves in the beginning by the way, we were called Evangelical Catholics until Roman Catholics coined the term Lutherans. I have no issues agreeing with Luther where he is exegetically or doctrinally correct, just as I have no issue disagreeing with Luther where he is exegetically or doctrinally incorrect. Lutherans are confessional Christians. With regard to your statement about the 95 Theses, I see this as a distinction without meaning. The misunderstandings that Luther was addressing were the result of sketchy doctrine and even sketchier practice, the practices flowed from the muddy doctrine, and the muddy doctrine was reinforced by practice. Doctrine and practice go hand in hand. And when Luther confronted the issue, they doubled down on the practice rather than calling a halt to it.

 

[QwertyGirl]

That sort of thing is not what is referred to as a teaching in this sense.

Tell that to all those people who forked over all that money.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

That sort of thing is not what is referred to as a teaching in this sense.

Tell that to all those people who forked over all that money.

How in the world is this a response to what I wrote?

 

[QwertyGirl]

You wrote that the buying and selling of indulgences wasn’t a Church teaching. I replied that the people who forked over money for indulgences, during the time when buying/selling of them was a thing, should be told that. It would be news to them. Of course it was a Church teaching when they did that.