Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[Contarini]

Begs the question…Does the fullness of truth exist somewhere? Anywhere? Leave the word Catholic out of it for a second. Can you conceive of any body that really exists in the world that expresses the fullness of truth as revealed? Or is truth merely expressed in the abstract?

If the truth really exists (I am the way, the truth, the life), can human beings who have differences of opinion and make mistakes still be unified in Christ?
Or do disagreements justify taking our ball and forming another game?
Our call is to give our trust and assent (faith) to Christ’s body despite differences of opinion. We are called toward unity, not to form another Church based on our selves.

First of all, of course disagreements don’t justify taking our ball and forming another game.

The question is whether folks like me who feel drawn to convert to Catholicism aren’t in fact “taking our ball and forming another game,” even if it’s the old game that everyone ought to have kept on playing

The Catholic argument about the necessity for doctrinal agreement on all points defined by the Church is, in a sense, a claim that disagreements justify taking our ball and forming another game.

As for the “fullness of the truth”: it seems to me that this term is more ambiguous than many Catholics think. The concept of doctrinal development implies that the “fullness of the truth” does not currently exist in its eschatological sense. That is to say, not all the implications of divine revelation have yet been worked out, nor will they be in this age. And then, of course, Catholics also have to admit that in practice Catholics have not lived out all the implications of the fullness of the truth. So the “fullness of the truth” claim seems to me to mean just this: that the Catholic Church has not by any of its doctrinal decisions cut itself off from some part of the original deposit of faith, or introduced some formal element that intrinsically conflicts with that original deposit.

In that sense, I accept the claim that the fullness of the truth exists in the Catholic Church. But I’m more skeptical about whether, for instance, the formulations of this document (which express the traditional Catholic position–I think the document basically repeats Denzinger) are entirely correct. In other words, it seems to me quite possible that the authorities of the Church might insist on something being a necessary implication of divine revelation when it isn’t, and might some day have to “walk back” that claim. This is no more than many liberal Catholics believe, of course (in fact I’m far more orthodox a Catholic in my beliefs than, for instance, most of the people who comment on the National Catholic Reporter’s articles, or probably most of the people who write the articles). But it raises questions for me about whether I should go through with the conversion process.

But on the other hand, having come so far, I’m not sure I can bear to turn my back yet again.

Edwin

 

[dronald]

Begs the question…Does the fullness of truth exist somewhere? Anywhere? Leave the word Catholic out of it for a second. Can you conceive of any body that really exists in the world that expresses the fullness of truth as revealed? Or is truth merely expressed in the abstract?

If the truth really exists (I am the way, the truth, the life), can human beings who have differences of opinion and make mistakes still be unified in Christ?
Or do disagreements justify taking our ball and forming another game?
Our call is to give our trust and assent (faith) to Christ’s body despite differences of opinion. We are called toward unity, not to form another Church based on our selves.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He is the fullness of truth and faith in His death, resurrection, ascension, guidance and love is our Salvation:

1 Corin 2:
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ.
2For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[guanophore]

First of all, of course disagreements don't justify taking our ball and forming another game.

The question is whether folks like me who feel drawn to convert to Catholicism aren’t in fact “taking our ball and forming another game,” even if it’s the old game that everyone ought to have kept on playing

This is a good point, Edwin, that I had not given much thought. As a Revert to Catholicism, this describes me as well. We all have responsibility before God to inform and act upon our conscience, so to some extent we must handle the “ball” (our souls) as best as we are able given what we know, and how we can respond to grace.

 The Catholic argument about the necessity for doctrinal agreement on all points defined by the Church is, in a sense, a claim that disagreements justify taking our ball and forming another game.

During the Reformation, there certainly was not any room for anything else.

 So the "fullness of the truth" claim seems to me to mean just this: that the Catholic Church has not by any of its doctrinal decisions cut itself off from some part of the original deposit of faith, or introduced some formal element that intrinsically conflicts with that original deposit.

This is a grave concern for me, as I think it is so necessary for us to heal the Schism with the East. The doctrinal development is really the only impediment that exists.

In other words, it seems to me quite possible that the authorities of the Church might insist on something being a necessary implication of divine revelation when it isn’t, and might some day have to “walk back” that claim.

The filoque perhaps being a good example of this.

 But it raises questions for me about whether I should go through with the conversion process.

Well, may God richly bless your journey, and please know that the Church very much needs traditional orthodox (“more Catholic”) voices.

 

[Kliska]

First of all, of course disagreements don’t justify taking our ball and forming another game.

The question is whether folks like me who feel drawn to convert to Catholicism aren’t in fact “taking our ball and forming another game,” even if it’s the old game that everyone ought to have kept on playing

The Catholic argument about the necessity for doctrinal agreement on all points defined by the Church is, in a sense, a claim that disagreements justify taking our ball and forming another game.

As for the “fullness of the truth”: it seems to me that this term is more ambiguous than many Catholics think. The concept of doctrinal development implies that the “fullness of the truth” does not currently exist in its eschatological sense. That is to say, not all the implications of divine revelation have yet been worked out, nor will they be in this age. And then, of course, Catholics also have to admit that in practice Catholics have not lived out all the implications of the fullness of the truth. So the “fullness of the truth” claim seems to me to mean just this: that the Catholic Church has not by any of its doctrinal decisions cut itself off from some part of the original deposit of faith, or introduced some formal element that intrinsically conflicts with that original deposit.

In that sense, I accept the claim that the fullness of the truth exists in the Catholic Church. But I’m more skeptical about whether, for instance, the formulations of this document (which express the traditional Catholic position–I think the document basically repeats Denzinger) are entirely correct. In other words, it seems to me quite possible that the authorities of the Church might insist on something being a necessary implication of divine revelation when it isn’t, and might some day have to “walk back” that claim. This is no more than many liberal Catholics believe, of course (in fact I’m far more orthodox a Catholic in my beliefs than, for instance, most of the people who comment on the National Catholic Reporter’s articles, or probably most of the people who write the articles). But it raises questions for me about whether I should go through with the conversion process.

But on the other hand, having come so far, I’m not sure I can bear to turn my back yet again.

Edwin

Along this line of thought, it has bothered me (since finding out about certain dogmas) that it seems that certain things have been set in stone by the RCC over time that one must believe in order to enter the RCC that seems to add in beliefs about humans other than Jesus… for example, one must now believe very specific things about Mary in order to join the RCC. What is the implication of the Bible verse, “no other name under heaven by which we must be saved” then?

I’ve said it before, it seems CS Lewis pegged it right when he said that Catholicism is a jungle, and protestantism is a desert. As a protestant, I’m not “protesting” anything currently, it seems as though “we” have moved beyond that… which also has implications for any type of reconciliation between the major Christian groups.

 

[pablope]

.

What I’m denying is the false statement that he did not include 74 books in his translation. There were and are 74 books in Luther’s Die Bibel. This is a fact beyond question. Whether or not Luther believed to be equal tothe rest of scripture is irrelevant to the fact that he translated (with help) and included them in his translation. The books are there, regardless of what he thought of them.

Here’s the point, Steve, and I don’t plan to belabor it anymore, in 1534, Luther’s completed translation was published. It contained 74 books, including the DC’s and the Prayer of Manasseh. The current publication of Luther’s Die Bibel continues to have 74 books in it, including the 7 DC books and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Whether or not Luther considered any of them as less than canonical does not change the fact that he translated and included 74 books. His opinion, much like that of Cardinal Cajetan and many others, does not have an effect on whether or not they are canonical.

Jon

Let me chime in here amd share with an observation from Gary Michuta:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Now, we’re not sure when this final ratification was given, but we do know that, by A.D. 405, Pope St. Innocent I was promoting the so-called “canon of Carthage” (397) throughout the Western Church. Rome would also have sent rescripts of its decison (final ratification of the Carthaginian canon) to Alexandria, the 2nd See of the universal Church and the primate in the East, with the expectation that Alexandria (as Eastern primate)would disseminate it throughout the East.
Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397).

 

[pablope]

Along this line of thought, it has bothered me (since finding out about certain dogmas) that it seems that certain things have been set in stone by the RCC over time that one must believe in order to enter the RCC that seems to add in beliefs about humans other than Jesus… for example, one must now believe very specific things about Mary in order to join the RCC.

The authority to Bind and loose was given to the Church, not the individual, on what to believe and what not to believe. The Church teaches, and we either follow with all humility and praying to accept the teachings of the Church or not.

Let me ask you…if your denomination, your pastor, said…we should all believe in the Immaculate conception…and I bind you all to believe it for your salvation…would you accept this or would you separate and find another denomination?

 

[guanophore]

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He is the fullness of truth and faith in His death, resurrection, ascension, guidance and love is our Salvation:

1 Corin 2:
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ.
2For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Yes, of course dronald. The question is, who has the fullest apprehension of what He revealed. For all Christians, there is an agreement about His death, resurrection, and ascension. The differences come down to the “guidance and love” part. How did Christ intend for us to live and worship?

 

[Kliska]

The authority to Bind and loose was given to the Church, not the individual, on what to believe and what not to believe. The Church teaches, and we either follow with all humility and praying to accept the teachings of the Church or not.

Let me ask you…if your denomination, your pastor, said…we should all believe in the Immaculate conception…and I bind you all to believe it for your salvation…would you accept this or would you separate and find another denomination?

I’m a non-denominational Christian, and I don’t currently have a pastor. Remember, as a protestant, it is scripture that is the final measuring stick for teachings.

But, it sidesteps my point; if there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved (and no church or person can gainsay that because we can clearly see it taught in scripture), it is my beliefs and faith in Jesus Christ; Who He is, what He has done, and that He rose again, not my beliefs about another human (Mary) that will determine salvation. From this perspective it seems the RCC, by adding Mary’s name into dogma that absolutely must be confessed and believed is in violation of scripture. Now it is not just about my faith in Jesus and His name. Even if every single other dogma I found I could confess, these dogmas would seem to keep seekers out if they did not agree (or even merely doubted), dogmatically, about Mary. Part of Lewis’ jungle, from my perspective.

The Ethiopian was shown Who Jesus was and what He had done and asked to believe that right before being baptized. It is Jesus we absolutely must confess, no other human. I think I’d have a problem with it, even if I did believe those things about Mary, and I already hold her in regard as a hero of the faith.

 

[steido01]

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

With respect to Gary, that’s absurd. Unless he has a psychic link to the dead, he has no way of knowing what Luther would have done. Frankly, I find the historic evidence to show the exact opposite. I propose that Luther would likely have accepted a Church-wide ruling on the canon had it happened before his lifetime. What other reason would he have to translate and keep those books he thought less of in his bible? Why would he say, quite bluntly, "* cannot include him [James] among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him” (LW 35:395-97). Who knows? Had an ecumenical council (read: not local councils with limited jurisdiction) ruled on it, Luther would’ve conceded to the Church. You don’t know. I don’t know. Gary certainly doesn’t know. Heck, Luther wasn’t alive so even he doesn’t know.

Furthermore, to state that the defense of Luther’s personal freedom here is intended to show the Catholic Church as dishonest is dishonest (and probably a bit paranoid). It’s simply reporting the facts of history without passing judgement on someone else - a someone else that Gary has never met! Besides,in making this argument, Gary is discrediting the work of every Catholic theologian who ever questioned the canonicity of the disputed books, including: Eusebius, Jerome, Erasmus and Cajetan. Does he really want to make that kind of argument?

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

I wish Gary would cite Luther on this topic rather than a tertiary source. Whatever. What he alleges Luther of saying isn’t wrong; the Church cannot just declare a book to be canonical on fiat - the book must be accepted by the Church at large. That’s how we weeded out all of the nasty, noxious Gnostic gospels. Say that ten times fast.

Now, we’re not sure when this final ratification was given, but we do know that, by A.D. 405, Pope St. Innocent I was promoting the so-called “canon of Carthage” (397) throughout the Western Church. Rome would also have sent rescripts of its decison (final ratification of the Carthaginian canon) to Alexandria, the 2nd See of the universal Church and the primate in the East, with the expectation that Alexandria (as Eastern primate)would disseminate it throughout the East.
Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397).

So even Bonocore admits that these were local councils, and that the Church in general had not officially closed the canon until Trent. Sound accurate to me.*

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I’m a non-denominational Christian, and I don’t currently have a pastor. Remember, as a protestant, it is scripture that is the final measuring stick for teachings.

But, it sidesteps my point; if there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved (and no church or person can gainsay that because we can clearly see it taught in scripture), it is my beliefs and faith in Jesus Christ; Who He is, what He has done, and that He rose again,

You missed some in there. How about: what He has taught, for example?

He taught such things as
Lu 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

If you don’t follow those teachings, then you don’t follow Christ.

not my beliefs about another human (Mary) that will determine salvation. From this perspective it seems the RCC, by adding Mary’s name into dogma that absolutely must be confessed and believed is in violation of scripture.

Of course that is your opinion.
However, Jesus did NOT say:
“He who hears Kliska hears me, …”

BTW, you do know that that particular saying (from Acts 12) was in answer to a phrase found on coins commemorating Augustus’ rise to power which said: “Salvation is to be found in none other than Augustus, and there is no other name given to man in which they can be saved.” ?

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12373769]Let me chime in here amd share with an observation from Gary Michuta:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

Michuta may have a point here, but I think you know, my friend, that this is not the position I take, nor should it be the position of a Lutheran, IMO. I think the polemics that Catholics added books, or that Luther removed books both fall short of the reality. The fact is that, even without Trent, it was the majority view and essentially the practice of inclusion of the DC books as canon, and it is a fact that Luther made the effort and felt it important enough to translate and include them.
Even though Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were not ecumenical councils, their view of the canon must be taken must be weighed heavily.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that the Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

There is no intent, IMV, that anyone is trying to make the Catholic Church look dishonest, but then I certainly won’t speak to the motives of those Michuta is speaking of. It is important to point out, again, that Luther saw to it that 2 Maccabees was translated and included. I think it rather clear that Luther knows the historically prevalent view, and gives deference to it by including them, his own opinion notwithstanding.

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Ironically, that’s not what he says in his prefaces to the DC books.

Now, we’re not sure when this final ratification was given, but we do know that, by A.D. 405, Pope St. Innocent I was promoting the so-called “canon of Carthage” (397) throughout the Western Church. Rome would also have sent rescripts of its decison (final ratification of the Carthaginian canon) to Alexandria, the 2nd See of the universal Church and the primate in the East, with the expectation that Alexandria (as Eastern primate)would disseminate it throughout the East.
Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397).

One then has to ask why the EO Churches have larger canons.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

I’m a non-denominational Christian, and I don’t currently have a pastor. Remember, as a protestant, it is scripture that is the final measuring stick for teachings.

But, it sidesteps my point; if there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved (and no church or person can gainsay that because we can clearly see it taught in scripture), it is my beliefs and faith in Jesus Christ; Who He is, what He has done, and that He rose again, not my beliefs about another human (Mary) that will determine salvation. From this perspective it seems the RCC, by adding Mary’s name into dogma that absolutely must be confessed and believed is in violation of scripture. Now it is not just about my faith in Jesus and His name. Even if every single other dogma I found I could confess, these dogmas would seem to keep seekers out if they did not agree (or even merely doubted), dogmatically, about Mary. Part of Lewis’ jungle, from my perspective.

The Ethiopian was shown Who Jesus was and what He had done and asked to believe that right before being baptized. It is Jesus we absolutely must confess, no other human. I think I’d have a problem with it, even if I did believe those things about Mary, and I already hold her in regard as a hero of the faith.

It kinda sounds to me that you do not need a pastor or a church and all you need it the Bible to tell you what you think you need to know. At least that is how I am understanding it.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Michuta may have a point here, but I think you know, my friend, that this is not the position I take, nor should it be the position of a Lutheran, IMO. I think the polemics that Catholics added books, or that Luther removed books both fall short of the reality. The fact is that, even without Trent, it was the majority view and essentially the practice of inclusion of the DC books as canon, and it is a fact that Luther made the effort and felt it important enough to translate and include them.

I’ve been in many bible studies with Lutherans, mostly MS. None had the deuterocanonical books in their bibles. Not a one.

 

[steido01]

I’ve been in many bible studies with Lutherans, mostly MS. None had the deuterocanonical books in their bibles. Not a one.

The sad reality of living in English-speaking, Anglican-influenced, too-afraid-to-appear-Catholic America. :sad_yes:

But we’re returning to our German roots.

 

[pablope]

I’m a non-denominational Christian, and I don’t currently have a pastor.

Well…actually…you are already a denomination…only the name of your denom is “non” denom.

And so, you are your own pastor/priest/bishop/pope? Do you determine yourself what to believe and what not to believe?

Remember, as a protestant, it is scripture that is the final measuring stick for teachings.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve been in many bible studies with Lutherans, mostly MS. None had the deuterocanonical books in their bibles. Not a one.

Sad, isn’t it, that American Lutherans have lost this important part of our scriptural heritage.
I have now in my possession this wonderful treasure.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The sad reality of living in English-speaking, Anglican-influenced, too-afraid-to-appear-Catholic America. :sad_yes:

But we’re returning to our German roots.

Notice, though, that this is a separate book, and it is called Apocrypha.

 

[pablope]

W

I propose that Luther would likely have accepted a Church-wide ruling on the canon had it happened before his lifetime. What other reason would he have to translate and keep those books he thought less of in his bible?

 

[JonNC]

Notice, though, that this is a separate book, and it is called Apocrypha.

Comparatively, I’ve heard some Catholics enthusiastically greet the news that Lutherans in America are rediscovering the DC’s.

Of course it is called apocrypha, and as a start, it is a separate book. It will take some time for American Lutherans to catch up to Luther’s Die Bibel, and be weaned off of English protestant Bibles.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Michuta may have a point here, but I think you know, my friend, that this is not the position I take, nor should it be the position of a Lutheran, IMO.

I know, Jon. But let me ask, and not to put you in a spot…was this the view you also had before? Or did you have a change in view?

And I wish all of those in the LCMS would take your view.

The fact is that, even without Trent, it was the majority view and essentially the practice of inclusion of the DC books as canon, and it is a fact that Luther made the effort and felt it important enough to translate and include them.
Even though Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were not ecumenical councils, their view of the canon must be taken must be weighed heavily.