Catholic vs Protestant Spirituality: Lets compare faith walks

[HopkinsReb]

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.

The selling of indulgences was a practice. The teaching is that the Church can offer indulgences for money or anything else. This teaching is true. The issue, as I bloody acknowledged in my post, is that that practice was widely abused and it was, for that reason, discontinued.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Of course it isn’t true. It is true that the Church says it is true. But any one with common sense knows it isn’t true.

But what do I know. I don’t believe in purgatory. I am agnostic.

Carry on.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Of course it isn’t true. It is true that the Church says it is true. But any one with common sense knows it isn’t true.

But what do I know. I don’t believe in purgatory. I am agnostic.

Carry on.

Ah, so we’re all idiots with no common sense. Got it.

We’re done here.

 

[Michael16]

I think you evaded Minks’ point. In no reasonable way, could Luther be considered a saintly man.

As for the whole doctrine vs. practice thing: First you said Luther said the Church was right and then later you said it didn’t.

You keep changing your position.

 

[Hodos]

Nor I. And yet I am a saint by the grace of God.

 

[Hodos]

As for the whole doctrine vs. practice thing: First you said Luther said the Church was right and then later you said it didn’t.

Right about what specifically? I never said Luther is infallible. I have never hinted at such an idea. Neither did Luther. Nor does it matter. My faith is not based on Luther, it is based on Christ and the apostolic confession of faith I make.

 

[Michael16]

You’re Lutheran, Hodos. Thus, you’re a follower of Luther.

You’re a Saint when you prove it in your actions. Look at the numerous saints in

 

[Michael16]

You’re Lutheran. Thus, you follow Luther. Stop evading please.

Plus, you prove you’re a Saint in your actions.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Plus, you prove you’re a Saint in your actions.

And we’re back to a difference between Lutherans and Catholics – faith, works, that old chestnut.

Luther is not the Lutheran Pope. They don’t consider his writings to be infallible pronouncements. All it means to be a Lutheran is that you subscribe to his framework of Christianity, not that you think everything he ever wrote was correct or that you think Luther himself was impeccable.

 

[Michael16]

Am I being unfair, Reb?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Am I being unfair, Reb?

I think you’re jumping ahead of the argument about soteriology necessary to argue about whether Luther is a saint. And you’re imposing a Catholic view of the Church’s authority, which is prescriptive, to a Lutheran’s view, which is descriptive.

 

[Mike1w]

why? I have enough struggle with my own faith walk. Why would I need to discuss anyone else’s walk, except in general terms.

 

[Hodos]

You’re Lutheran. Thus, you follow Luther. Stop evading please.

Plus, you prove you’re a Saint in your actions.

Nope. I am a follower of Christ. I appreciate that Luther correctly clarified some important teachings of the Church, just as I appreciate his forebearers such as Augustine, Tertullian, Novatian, the Cappodocian fathers, etc., who did the same. You may choose to try to misrepresent that and place words in my mouth in an attempt at apologetic misdirection, but that’s not my concern.

I see no evidence that a saint is a saint based on actions, I see a saint is a saint based on receiving God’s grace through faith. I think the usage you are trying to apply is an anachronistic definition that does not fit with the historic usage of the word hagios throughout both old and new testament scriptures. Your definition appears to be more defined by canon law than scriptural usage. But you are free to do so. I don’t see this as a dogmatic issue, although it does speak volumes about your views of soteriology. Its just an interesting difference between our traditions on that matter. It is fascinating how doctrines of anthropology, soteriology, Christology, etc. weave together.

 

[Minks]

You’re comparing Luther’s thinking and language to God’s via Paul some 1500 years earlier?

Wow.

 

[Michael16]

I’m insulted, Hodos.

You’re fighting our “ false doctrines and practices “ when your own founder is proven to be a liar?

You ask for even scales and you reveal this to us?

You say you’re Saint Paul preaching to the lost?

As for my definition, I’m going off of the exemplary lives of holiness, virtue and charity that Saints Like Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Catherine of Siena lived.

The Church only recognizes the fact that they made it to Heaven when they’re canonized.

Please, even scales. Don’t quote me the Augsburg Confessions at me for your definitions as I don’t recognize them. Since you don’t recognize the Church’s laws.

 

[Hodos]

Fair enough. You were the one asking me the questions. I was merely presenting our confessions because they provide a common basis for reference when the two of us are using terms differently from one another.

With regard to you being insulted, I am sorry you feel that way. That is not my intention. However, as you are the one leveling the heretic charge it is only fair that I address this from a scriptural and confessional standpoint in my defense. My entire point is that the standard for what is heretical is grounded in scripture.

 

[Michael16]

You haven’t answered the question: Do you preach at us as if you were Saint Paul?

 

[Michael16]

I’m not the one who leveled the word heretic. You just did. I have just established how Luther discredited himself as he violated Scripture to make it say what he wanted it to say and attempted to remove books that contradicted him.

Whereas the Church over 1,500 years did careful work on Scripture exegesis.

Your founder’s doctrines are proven to be unscriptural and yet to hold to them in the fact of overwhelming truth.

 

[Hodos]

You haven’t answered the question: Do you preach at us as if you were Saint Paul?

I have no issue with proclaiming Paul’s gospel within the confines of my vocation as a member of the priesthood of all believers. Whatever else you would like to make of that is your business.

Whereas the Church over 1,500 years did careful work on Scripture exegesis.

I would say yes, there are many works that do employ sound exegesis specific to the issues they were addressing. I absolutely affirm this, this is not in question. There were other places where exegesis was sketchy, or used reasoning foreign to the actual scriptures. Some of these proved to be detrimental to the clarity of the gospel as over time practice and doctrine continued to wander off on a tangent. Some of these specific doctrines are of relatively minor consequence (in my opinion), while others have proven to be related to essential doctrines of soteriology. So it depends on the specific doctrine.

Your founder’s doctrines are proven to be unscriptural and yet to hold to them in the fact of overwhelming truth.

Feel free to demonstrate which doctrines in the AC are unscriptural. I have not seen this done with any sort of consistent exegesis yet. Essentially, the only answer that I have seen given here is the same answer that was given 500 years ago, which was not convincing then. You have asserted your position as being the authority without addressing the issues we are discussing, or demonstrating from scripture the validity of the point you are pushing. If your position is strong exegetically, then surely you can argue from that stance and it may lend credence to your presumed authority. At this point, I will allow you to cool down since it is clear that this is devolving into a series of ad hominem attacks.

 

[Michael16]

Hodos, in the face of your preaching against our “ false doctrines and practices “ and teaching your catechism to us; I’m no longer interested in dialogue with you.

I’ve continually been arguing from a solid exegetical stance from the beginning. It seems to me that you either don’t care or don’t want to listen. I’ve supplied you with the historical record. Again, same thing.

I’ve never claimed any authority. In fact: I’ve always pointed to the real authority. Which is the the Church, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; headed by Christ. Who’s your authority? Martin Luther?

And now this: You’re here, fighting against “ false doctrines and practices “; and preaching to faithful Catholics on our website?

I’m quite upset with you but I’ll just walk away from a fight that will just be a pointless quagmire that does neither of us any good.

I’m sorry, Hodos. I just can’t talk with you anymore, except to defend and save my fellow Catholics from your preaching and teaching; since you’re not here to engage in any meaningful dialogue; but to preach and teach your catechism.

God bless you, Hodos and I’ll pray for your conversion to the true Faith.