Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

[Lampo]

You’ll note in the first quote you’ve presented that the author is only talking about the New Testament, where there has historically been near universal consensus.

Why has there been universal consensus? Why do Protestants think the Church got it right with the New Testament and not the Old? The Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining both Testaments.

This has never been the case for the Old Testament.

Do Protestants think the Holy Spirit was present with the Catholic Church when determining the New Testament but then abandoned the Church when she was determining the Old even though it was happening at the exact same time?

But then by the time we get to the second quote, the author makes you think that there has been some universal acceptance of the entire biblical canon until the Reformation–which is not true and, imo, pretty deceptive.

Universal acceptance doesn’t have to mean 100% acceptance. Universally, it was accepted until the Reformation. The author is right on, imo.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why has there been universal consensus? Why do Protestants think the Church got it right with the New Testament and not the Old? The Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining both Testaments.

As for the NT, I really have no idea why there has been near universal consensus–perhaps you have information on that. I doubt that anyone really knows for sure.

I never said one OT canon was “right” and another was “wrong.” Actually, just the opposite.

Do Protestants think the Holy Spirit was present with the Catholic Church when determining the New Testament but then abandoned the Church when she was determining the Old even though it was happening at the exact same time?

All we have are the facts at hand. The churches have a virtually uniform canon for the NT and a diverse canon for the OT. How do you account for the diversity?

Universal acceptance doesn’t have to mean 100% acceptance. Universally, it was accepted until the Reformation. The author is right on, imo.

I’m thinking that perhaps you still haven’t examined the (varying) biblical canons that I keep referring you to. It’s apparent that as the whole the biblical canon as set out by the Latinate Church in the fourth century wasn’t universally accepted–in fact, the vast majority of Christians went on using a different canon and Rome never made it a point of schism–or even an issue as far as I know. You are certainly free to continue to believe the author, but the problem is that his statements don’t mesh with the facts. Or, If you can provide an explanation of how these diverse canons among the various churches can about (which Rev. Graham doesn’t provide), I’d love to hear it.

So just to boil down the question into simpler terms using only two examples: How do you account for the fact that the biblical canon differs between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church? Are you saying they were the same until the Reformation? How and why did the Orthodox canon change? What evidence can you provide that it did change?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

One other thing that is a difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, especially in the United States is our polity.

 

[Esdra]

One other thing that is a difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, especially in the United States is our polity.

Okay.
What are you exactely referring to?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Okay.
What are you exactely referring to?

I’m referring how the church governs itself.

In the US and in the rest of the world, the Roman Catholic Church polity is episcopal polity. In other words the structure is hierarchical with the chief authority over a local church is a the bishop. Some of the state Lutheran Churches in Europe also practice episcopal polity.

But here in the US, the ELCA are a modified episcopal/congregationalist polity. Which means we have a hierarchy of bishops that have some authority and other authority is vested in the local congregation.

LCMS and WELS would be considered as having a congregationalist polity. Each congregation has greater independence and is tied loosely to it’s district.

 

[GaryTaylor]

One other thing that is a difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, especially in the United States is our polity.

Did you read Benedicts “Light of the World”? Anyway there 's a chapter in the book which talks about the Othrodox Church, Angelican and Lutheran in regards to universal understanding on one basic thought process. Opening the gates of Rome up to other faiths.

Anyway Lutheran Bishop Johannes Friedrich was quoted and raised the possibilty of a united recognition of the papal office, as an “ecumemically acceptable” spokesman for world christianity"

The Angelical and Orthodox have is essence taken futher steps in this regard. The Orthodox was said to have been 97% in communion with Rome, which IMO may be a bit optimistic, not a hundered percent sure. I do know they have been talking over 25 years on a regular basis and have made progess.

Anyway have you heard anything on this issue?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Did you read Benedicts “Light of the World”? Anyway there 's a chapter in the book which talks about the Othrodox Church, Angelican and Lutheran in regards to universal understanding on one basic thought process. Opening the gates of Rome up to other faiths.

Anyway Lutheran Bishop Johannes Friedrich was quoted and raised the possibilty of a united recognition of the papal office, as an “ecumemically acceptable” spokesman for world christianity"

The Angelical and Orthodox have is essence taken futher steps in this regard. The Orthodox was said to have been 97% in communion with Rome, which IMO may be a bit optimistic, not a hundered percent sure. I do know they have been talking over 25 years on a regular basis and have made progess.

Anyway have you heard anything on this issue?

I haven’t heard anything on this. I find it interesting. I could accept the papal office as an ecumenically acceptable spokesman for world Christianity, provided that what ever he was speaking on was truly ecumenical and not just formulations from the Latin Church. But accepting the Pope as a spokesman is different than the Pope exercising infallibility and universal jurisdiction.

Somehow I don’t see the East and West being 97% in communion with Rome, unless you are counting the above two things as only 3% of the divide. Although, maybe more progress has been made and Rome has made concessions that I never thought they would have.

 

[JonNC]

=GaryTaylor;7448993]Did you read Benedicts “Light of the World”? Anyway there 's a chapter in the book which talks about the Othrodox Church, Angelican and Lutheran in regards to universal understanding on one basic thought process. Opening the gates of Rome up to other faiths.

Anyway Lutheran Bishop Johannes Friedrich was quoted and raised the possibilty of a united recognition of the papal office, as an “ecumemically acceptable” spokesman for world christianity"

Frankly, I think he already does, this one and his predecessor. I also think his role is far greater in the Church Catholic, though obviously not as great as Rome does.

Jon

 

[Lampo]

As for the NT, I really have no idea why there has been near universal consensus–perhaps you have information on that.

I don’t know why non-Catholics agree with the Catholic Church about the canon of the NT and then disagree on other doctrines even though they all come from the same source - God.

I never said one OT canon was “right” and another was “wrong.” Actually, just the opposite.

I’m sorry, what did you say? They are all inspired? None are inspired?

All we have are the facts at hand. The churches have a virtually uniform canon for the NT and a diverse canon for the OT. How do you account for the diversity?

The devil is the author of division. Some did not yield to the teaching authority of the Church. Pride. Some thought, and still do, that they knew better than the Church, which is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

I’m thinking that perhaps you still haven’t examined the (varying) biblical canons that I keep referring you to. It’s apparent that as the whole the biblical canon as set out by the Latinate Church in the fourth century wasn’t universally accepted–in fact, the vast majority of Christians went on using a different canon and Rome never made it a point of schism–or even an issue as far as I know. You are certainly free to continue to believe the author, but the problem is that his statements don’t mesh with the facts. Or, If you can provide an explanation of how these diverse canons among the various churches can about (which Rev. Graham doesn’t provide), I’d love to hear it.

I have not examined the varying biblical canons this time. I’ve seen them and know they exist. They exist because some didn’t yield to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

So just to boil down the question into simpler terms using only two examples: How do you account for the fact that the biblical canon differs between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church?

By not yielding to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Are you saying they were the same until the Reformation? How and why did the Orthodox canon change? What evidence can you provide that it did change?

By not yielding to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[Augsburg1530]

I don’t know why non-Catholics agree with the Catholic Church about the canon of the NT and then disagree on other doctrines even though they all come from the same source - God.

Clearly because we don’t believe those doctrines that are in dispute have come from God. I agree with Baptists, Presbyterians and the Orthodox about the canon of the NT, yet don’t agree with everything they teach. I don’t single out Rome in this regard.

The devil is the author of division. Some did not yield to the teaching authority of the Church. Pride. Some thought, and still do, that they knew better than the Church, which is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t see how you can assume it has anything to do with pride. What would drive you to place the worst possible construction on the convictions of your neighbor? What I believe and confess has absolutely nothing to do with not “yielding” to the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Lampo]

Clearly because we don’t believe those doctrines that are in dispute have come from God. I agree with Baptists, Presbyterians and the Orthodox about the canon of the NT, yet don’t agree with everything they teach. I don’t single out Rome in this regard.

You are your ultimate authority.

I don’t see how you can assume it has anything to do with pride. What would drive you to place the worst possible construction on the convictions of your neighbor? What I believe and confess has absolutely nothing to do with not “yielding” to the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Because pride is at the root. You yield to the Catholic Church’s teaching authority when it comes to the New Testament but don’t yield when it comes to other teachings even though they all come from the same source - the Holy Spirit.

 

[Augsburg1530]

You are your ultimate authority.

Because pride is at the root. You yield to the Catholic Church’s teaching authority when it comes to the New Testament but don’t yield when it comes to other teachings even though they all come from the same source - the Holy Spirit.

It’s quite the irony that the above comments sound more prideful than anything any Protestant poster had stated in this thread so far.

 

[Lampo]

It’s quite the irony that the above comments sound more prideful than anything any Protestant poster had stated in this thread so far.

Maybe to you. “Information is received depending on the mode of the recipient.” - Saint Thomas Aquinas

How do my statements convey undue self-esteem or self-love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God?

 

[Lampo]

If you do some research, you’ll find that Rome, Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils at all, but actually synods of bishops. Since the Byzantine bishops either did not participate or had only limited participation in these synods–much less the Churches of the East who had no representation at ALL (and who all have their own varieties of biblical canons that differ from the Latinate canon), the gatherings you refer to don’t qualify as “all bishops in union with the pope.” And if the question of canon had been indisputably settled in the West, the declarations of Trent would not have been necessary.

For the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Catholic Church (and other groups) see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

As far as I know, the article is fairly accurate.

Those councils did not issue a definition of the canon, but because Trent did in the 16th century, confirming what those earlier councils did, demonstrates that their determination of the canon was in fact infallible (because it was affirmed by an infallible definition from Trent).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Those councils did not issue a definition of the canon, but because Trent did in the 16th century, confirming what those earlier councils did, demonstrates that their determination of the canon was in fact infallible (because it was affirmed by an infallible definition from Trent).

If the Roman Catholic definition of the biblical canon is infallible, then why were the differences in the biblical canon never a point of schism between the churches prior to the Reformation?

 

[Lampo]

If the Roman Catholic definition of the biblical canon is infallible, then why were the differences in the biblical canon never a point of schism between the churches prior to the Reformation?

Why didn’t people break away from the Church and start their own? I don’t know. Should they have done so because they disagreed with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church? Because some within the Church disagreed with the Church that doesn’t mean the Church was confused.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why didn’t people break away from the Church and start their own? I don’t know. Should they have done so because they disagreed with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church? Because some within the Church disagreed with the Church that doesn’t mean the Church was confused.

It’s not really a question of why they didn’t start their own church, it’s a question of why wouldn’t the Bishop of Rome excommunicate them for defying what he perceived to be his infallible teaching? (That is, if he actually thought it was infallible.)

As I stated earlier, we’re not talking about a few scattered people here and there–we’re talking about the vast majority of Christians (including bishops and patriarchs) maintaining a different biblical canon than the one declared by the Bishop of Rome. Seems that if the Bishop of Rome actually perceived the 4th/5th century declarations of the biblical canon to be infallible, and thus something all of Christianity should accept, then he would have brought the facts of this decision to the attention of the other patriarchs. Why didn’t he do that? Or, why didn’t the other churches change their canons to conform to the Roman biblical canon? (If they had refused, then by a Roman Catholic understanding, they would be in schism–yet they were not.) Why do non-Protestant/non-Catholic Christian churches maintain different biblical canons than the Roman Catholic church until this day?

In sum, there has never been a declaration regarding the biblical canon in the context of “all bishops teaching in union with the Pope.” Bishops from the Byzantine Church, for example (which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as having valid orders but who maintain a different biblical canon) played no role at all at Trent.

 

[Lampo]

It’s not really a question of why they didn’t start their own church, it’s a question of why wouldn’t the Bishop of Rome excommunicate them for defying what he perceived to be his infallible teaching? (That is, if he actually thought it was infallible.)

Don’t know the details behind why he didn’t excommunicate them.

As I stated earlier, we’re not talking about a few scattered people here and there–we’re talking about the vast majority of Christians (including bishops and patriarchs) maintaining a different biblical canon than the one declared by the Bishop of Rome.

I’ve heard just the opposite. The vast majority of Catholics (all Christians were Catholic at that point) accepted the teaching of the Magisterium. What do you mean, “maintaining”? Disagreeing? Removing books from the Bible and compiling their own on their own authority?

Seems that if the Bishop of Rome actually perceived the 4th/5th century declarations of the biblical canon to be infallible, and thus something all of Christianity should accept, then he would have brought the facts of this decision to the attention of the other patriarchs.

Don’t know. Maybe he didn’t think it was necessary.

Or, why didn’t the other churches change their canons to conform to the Roman biblical canon? (If they had refused, then by a Roman Catholic understanding, they would be in schism–yet they were not.) Why do non-Protestant/non-Catholic Christian churches maintain different biblical canons than the Roman Catholic church until this day?

Because they must not be in full communion with the Holy Father and the Bishops.

In sum, there has never been a declaration regarding the biblical canon in the context of “all bishops teaching in union with the Pope.” Bishops from the Byzantine Church, for example (which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as having valid orders but who maintain a different biblical canon) played no role at all at Trent.

Those early councils did not issue a definition of the canon, but because Trent did in the 16th century, confirming what those earlier councils did, demonstrates that their determination of the canon was in fact infallible (because it was affirmed by an infallible definition from Trent).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’ve heard just the opposite. The vast majority of Catholics (all Christians were Catholic at that point) accepted the teaching of the Magisterium. What do you mean, “maintaining”? Disagreeing? Removing books from the Bible and compiling their own on their own authority?

Yes, by “maintaining” I mean compiling their own canon on their own authority. Many churches were in existence already in the fourth century and they all had biblical canons that differed in various respects from the biblical canon set out by the Roman Church and most from each other as well.

So on one hand you are saying that all these various churches (e.g., Greek Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Armenian Orthodox Church, etc., etc.) that have canons that differ from the one established at Rome, Carthage and Hippo were “not in full communion with Holy Father and the bishops” in the fourth century (with nothing to back that up–and is just simply false) and then on the other hand that the vast majority of Catholics (which I guess in your definition would include all Christians in all of these various churches) accepted the teaching of the Magisterium. These both can’t be true statements.

I guess then all I can finally suggest is that you do your own research using scholarly (non-apologetic) sources instead of relying on what some people have told you. My suggestion would be to begin with sincerely looking at the history of some of the Churches of the East (sometimes referred to as “Oriental Orthodox”).

 

[Lampo]

Yes, by “maintaining” I mean compiling their own canon on their own authority.

By using their own authority, which the Holy Spirit never promised to guide into all truth, they all could be wrong.

Many churches were in existence already in the fourth century and they all had biblical canons that differed in various respects from the biblical canon set out by the Roman Church and most from each other as well.

One Church was established by Jesus and promised by the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth. I’m going with that Church when it comes to the canon of scripture.

So on one hand you are saying that all these various churches (e.g., Greek Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Armenian Orthodox Church, etc., etc.) that have canons that differ from the one established at Rome, Carthage and Hippo were “not in full communion with Holy Father and the bishops” in the fourth century (with nothing to back that up–and is just simply false) and then on the other hand that the vast majority of Catholics (which I guess in your definition would include all Christians in all of these various churches) accepted the teaching of the Magisterium. These both can’t be true statements.

Of those Churches, there is only one that was established by Jesus and has always been called Catholic. Those eastern churches can’t get around that fact. That tells me which Church is guided into all truth. Including deciding the canon of scripture.

I guess then all I can finally suggest is that you do your own research using scholarly (non-apologetic) sources instead of relying on what some people have told you. My suggestion would be to begin with sincerely looking at the history of some of the Churches of the East (sometimes referred to as “Oriental Orthodox”).

Thanks for the advice. Not all that I have read was strictly apologetic. Actually, most were not. I have never heard once what you claim. That the vast majority of Catholics in the 4th century disagreed with the Church when she infallibly determined the canon of scripture. If what you say is true, then Jimmy Akin, Patrick Coffin, Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Fr. Serpa, Fr. Corapi, Scott Hahn, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, etc., are all either very ignorant of the history of the bible or are liars. What do you say? They are ignorant or liars?