Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[JonNC]

=steve b;12380501]
One then could ask, after Luther makes scriptural deductions and additions, who then is it, you’re basing your rule of faith on ?

That assumes he made deductions and additions, which he didn’t.

Just to be clear, are you contrasting protestant or post-Trent Catholic understanding of canon and scripture as opposed to Lutheran understanding of same]… as if Lutherans aren’t protestants or united with other protestants on this?

Actually, the Lutheran view is more like pre-Trent, where the privilege to dispute books of the canon existed.

btw

• if we’re talking here about how Luther defind word of God, who’s authority is he operating under? He’s an excommunicated defrocked priest from the Catholic Church. He speaks for no one but himself

Did Cajetan have some special authority? How about Erasmus? The “authority” was the privilege every Catholic was given.

• Re: Trent and the canon, I forgot to give you one more piece of information. In 1442, 100+ years prior to Trent, the council of Florence

Is that when Eastern Orthodoxy adopted the 73 book canon? Does the EO accept FLorence as an ecumenical council? Did Florence define the western canon in the same way Trent did?

Session 11 (1442) also canonized the same 73 books.

• Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence (ecumenical), Trent, that’s alot of councils canonizing the same books of scripture.

Local synods are not ecumenical councils, but as I said, and Don agreed, these should not be easily dismissed, but weighted heavily.

To be clear, are you denying Luther put 7 OT books into his apocrypha?

No, but it was Luther’s opinion.

I think in a disguised way, that response answers my previous question. You’re following Luther’s lead on those books aren’t scripture, therefore because they don’t equal scripture, they are not valuable for doctrine.

I is true that Luther has significant influence. Also significant is that his view on the canon was not specifically acknowledged in the Confessions

Not true.
They are Canonical books, and they are used for the explanation of doctrine.

Lutherans can certainly use the DC’s to support doctrine, but we do not use them as a primary source for doctrine.

• praying for the dead, and purgatory, Maccabees
• the coming of Jesus described in Wisdom
• “Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraided us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressions of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of GOD: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grevious unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that GOD is his Father. Let us see if his words be true; and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the Son of GOD, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.” Wisdom 2:12-20 ,

2 Macc certainly supports the notion of prayer for the dead, which Lutheranism does not reject, and our view of purgation is not tarnished by it, IMV.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I can’t imagine why you would make such a demand of JonNC, or any other Lutheran on CAF,for that matter. Has any Lutheran here implied that any Catholic should leave the Roman communion? Or that if they did, there would be no consequences?

My question fits with the conversation he and I are having,
g:

I would say that the canon goes even further back from that time, since Jesus and the Apsotles quoted from the Septuagint, the early councils had identified the NT a century and more before the Council of Rome.

what’s interesting, even the muratorian canon ~180 didn’t list all the NT books
g:

That sure did seem to be his opinion. I hope you are not painting modern Lutherans into a corner to defend it!

Some seem to want to defend Luther , some want to run away from him as fast as they can. Either way they carry his name as their founder and father of protestantism.

 

[steido01]

okay, Luther is no longer Catholic. And given his disposition he clearly shows to all, an “eventual reunion” even in his day has probably zero chance.

I was talking about today. In our days, it is typically a demonstration of good charity (not to mention history) to read an entire work and its context than to cherry pick for saucy bits. We could all build a Straw Man from the juiciest quotes of the ‘other side.’ Luther wasn’t saying what you are saying he was saying, and I’m saying you should find that a good thing.

So then does he deny that scripture is the word of God?

Of course not, and I think you know that’s absurd. I’m simply dissolving your inaccurate paraphrase of the man. Luther was not speaking in defense of the “protestant” view. Did you read the Strodbeck link I posted?

One then could ask, after Luther makes scriptural deductions and additions, who then is it, you’re basing your rule of faith on ?

I won’t answer questions built upon a faulty presupposition. But I will state that the Rule of Faith comes to us through the Apostles and is proclaimed by the called and ordained servants of the Word.

Just to be clear, are you contrasting protestant or post-Trent Catholic understanding of canon and scripture as opposed to Lutheran understanding of same]… as if Lutherans aren’t protestants or united with other protestants on this?

Lutheranism subscribes to neither the post-Trent Catholic view, nor the “protestant” view. Ours is, as Jon explained, basically unmoved from the pre-Tridentine Catholic position. You could say that Lutherans are old-fashioned when compared to Catholics on the status of the canon.

if we’re talking here about how Luther defind word of God, who’s authority is he operating under? He’s an excommunicated defrocked priest from the Catholic Church. He speaks for no one but himself

Right, Luther speaks for no one but Luther. Why do you seem to want to make him speak for all of “protestantism?”

*]Re: Trent and the canon, I forgot to give you one more piece of information. In 1442, 100+ years prior to Trent, the council of Florence Session 11 (1442) also canonized the same 73 books.
Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence (ecumenical), Trent, that’s alot of councils canonizing the same books of scripture.

I am aware of these councils, though obviously I’d disagree as to their ‘ecumenical’ quality. Even so, they deserve our attention. So many Christian localities must have been on to something. At the least, the DC’s are worthy of study by all Christians.

To be clear, are you denying Luther put 7 OT books into his apocrypha?

There’s a non-sequitor. I simply explained that Lutherans take neither the “protestant” view of “an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration” nor the post-Tridentine Catholic view “that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority.” Had you read my link you would understand that.

I really wish a knowledgeable Catholic would discuss the Lutheran approach to Scripture and ‘canon.’ I can’t, and won’t, defend the “protestant” view.

I think in a disguised way, that response answers my previous question. You’re following Luther’s lead on those books aren’t scripture, therefore because they don’t equal scripture, they are not valuable for doctrine.

Not true.

No? You mean that the Catholic Church considers the DC’s equal to the four Gospels? Truly? The simple fact is that certain books of every canon have always held more or less weight than others throughout Christian history. The four Gospels obviously have more importance than, say, Leviticus.

They are Canonical books, and they are used for the explanation of doctrine.

Explanation of, sure. Creation of, no. Potential support for both examples you gave can be found outside of the DC’s.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is that when Eastern Orthodoxy adopted the 73 book canon?

No. The Eastern Orthodox have used (And still use) what the Apostles had at the time for the Old Testament: Septuagint, from which more than 60% of the New Testament quotes come from.

Does the EO accept FLorence as an ecumenical council?

No. Florence is really a continuation of the Council of Basel, which was transferred to Ferrara in 1438. It was later moved to Florence in 1439 due to the plague hitting Ferrara. It was a Council to reunite with the Greek Orthodox and other Eastern Churches, but not all of the Patriarchates. I think it ended abruptly and then continued in Rome in 1443 (1st Lateran?).

Did Florence define the western canon in the same way Trent did?

Definitely not.

Florence:

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Trent:

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

There is no anathema in regards to the Canon of Scriptures in Florence.

Interesting that in both instances Paul is cited as the author of Hebrews.

Peace,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Lutheranism subscribes to neither the post-Trent Catholic view, nor the “protestant” view. Ours is, as Jon explained, basically unmoved from the pre-Tridentine Catholic position. You could say that Lutherans are old-fashioned when compared to Catholics on the status of the canon.

Don,

Interesting article, thanks. There is something missing, however . IMHumbleO, the Orthodox approach to the Canon of Scriptures is the most conservative and careful (I’m struggling to find a better word). The majority of references to the Septuagint writings present in the NT cannot be ignored and in the absence of something definitive, it must be understood that it was what was used mostly by the Apostles and the Early Church.

My question then is: What is the Lutheran approach to this?

Thanks,

 

[steve_b]

That assumes he made deductions and additions, which he didn’t.

Jon

denying that he didn’t do that doesn’t wash with history
J:

Actually, the Lutheran view is more like pre-Trent, where the privilege to dispute books of the canon existed.

Already answered. Florence, an ecumenical council 100+ years before Trent, ruled on the same canon we saw at Rome in 382.
J:

Did Cajetan have some special authority? How about Erasmus? The “authority” was the privilege every Catholic was given.

None of them changed the canon. They had zero influence OR effect on the canon
J:

Is that when Eastern Orthodoxy adopted the 73 book canon? Does the EO accept FLorence as an ecumenical council? Did Florence define the western canon in the same way Trent did?

I gave the link to the entire docs of Florence…but specifically to the section involving the naming of the books of the bible?

As far as EO, they aren’t Catholics, and they aren’t members of the Catholic Church. What makes a council ecumenical is Catholic bishops meet East and West & the pope approves the council as binding for the entire Church. there have been 21 ecumenical councils
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/
J:

Local synods are not ecumenical councils, but as I said, and Don agreed, these should not be easily dismissed, but weighted heavily.

2 ecumenical councils (Florence and Trent) did NOT change the canon that was in place since 382 but validated it… In a technical sense, until a pope or an ecumenical council closes the canon, which Florence did, then prior to Florence the canon could theoretically be discussed concerning any modification.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D

Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books , Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament,* which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.

From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for this quote books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=The+Decree +of+Pope+St.+Damasus+I,+Council+of+Rome. +382+A.D&source=bl&ots=ZeUc7S4cIZ&sig=cU TkVsWkzas9JkjusNcC0I1H6Sc&hl=en&sa=X&ei= V2wUVMH3Fo2MyASvuILABQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v =onepage&q=The%20Decree%20of%20Pope%20St .%20Damasus%20I%2C%20Council%20of%20Rome .%20382%20A.D&f=false
J:

Lutherans can certainly use the DC’s to support doctrine, but we do not use them as a primary source for doctrine.

Is that true among all of Lutheranism? Who speaks for Lutheranism?
J:

2 Macc certainly supports the notion of prayer for the dead, which Lutheranism does not reject, and our view of purgation is not tarnished by it, IMV.

Jon

Luther sure had a problem with it.*

 

[PRmerger]

Kudos to you, steve b, for presenting your opinions in a cogent and reasoned manner!

I may not agree with all of what you have been arguing, but you certainly are able to meet their objections and refutations with some trenchant points.

:clapping:

 

[Per_Crucem]

Is that true among all of Lutheranism? Who speaks for Lutheranism?

The Book of Concord.

Luther sure had a problem with it.

He may have. Again, you’re confusing Luther and Lutheranism. Lutherans are (or at least should) be held to the Book of Concord, not Luther…unless you’d rather we hold you to every statement by every Pope, rather than the teaching of the magisterium.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Don,

Interesting article, thanks. There is something missing, however . IMHumbleO, the Orthodox approach to the Canon of Scriptures is the most conservative and careful (I’m struggling to find a better word). The majority of references to the Septuagint writings present in the NT cannot be ignored and in the absence of something definitive, it must be understood that it was what was used mostly by the Apostles and the Early Church.

My question then is: What is the Lutheran approach to this?

Thanks,

To the deuterocanonicals, or to the Septuagint in general?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To the deuterocanonicals, or to the Septuagint in general?

The DC’s are in the Septuagint.

 

[guanophore]

To most protestants sola scripture doesn't imply that there is not other humans involved in our learning and even in the traditions of the church, but rather, in a simple sense that all things that others say should not contradict scripture.

I know that there are many definitions of Sola Scriptura, but this is not one of them. The position you describe here is a Catholic position, and the cc rejects Sola Scriptura.

  Bible studies, commentaries, teachers, preachers, discussion groups (such as this board and in real life), etc...

Then we come to the ability to discern what “contradicts scripture?” According to whose perception? For example, Catholics (as do all Churches planted by Apostles) believe Jesus meant what he said (literally) when he held the Bread in His hands and said “this is my body”. But all those who have departed from the Apostolic faith consider this statement “symbolic”. So whose belief “contradicts” scripture?

 Also sola scripture is a way of affirming the role of the Spirit in being able to guide, and in fact that he did guide.

Although Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers and functions to reveal the Word of God to the heart, we also believe the HS does not lead believers in opposite directions. We are to understand the Scriptures according to the faith of those who produced it, so we read through a certain pair of glasses.

 "Private revelation" is usually meant to mean something that is not revealed in scripture, and most protestants don't believe in private revelation.  Instead, what I'm referring to the guidance of the Spirit when it comes to things already revealed in scripture.

That is like saying "most Protestants don’t believe they have a belly button! The principle of private revelation is what has separated believers from the Apostolic Tradition. People don’t read from the context of the faith of the Church which produced the Scripture.

So, take the subject of tithing or giving for example.  Private revelation would be adding something not in scripture about tithing/giving.  You can find every opinion out there under the sun about tithing and giving, and each side swears they are right, and each side uses scripture.

This is the fruit of the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. By its nature, it produces separation and division.

  I read each side, read scripture, read context, pray, and see what is actually written.  Sometimes the writing is obviously supporting one side over another, and it is just like "studying to show you are approved."  You find the evidence and reasons and it is a very logical argument based on the text.

You are doing what most faithful Protestants do…you determine the meaning of the Scripture through prayer, study, and logic. You rely on your own abilities, given to you by God, to understand the meaning. This can be done in total isolation from the faith of the Apostles.

 Other things I truly believe it is being lead by God and you have "a-ha" type of moments.  Converts to Christianity often have stories like that, and it is something that most of us here, regardless of what church we belong to can relate to.

Certainly the experience of a spiritual awakening is universal to human beings, and has been described in all religions, and even those outside of religion.

 Once God led me to it and I read and studied on it, I formulated, for me what I believed based on scripture and personal conviction.

This is actually a very good description of Sola Scriptura.

Does that help at least clarify where I'm coming from?

Very much, thanks.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The DC’s are in the Septuagint.

Within Lutheran tradition they are referred to as the antilogemena of the Old Testament (as James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 & 3 John, Jude and 2 Peter are the antilogemena of the New Testament). We refer to them inasmuch as they confirm doctrine contained in the primary books (the homolougemena). We do not use them to form doctrine in and of themselves.

Note that what I posted above does not represent Lutheranism in the US, which unfortunately suffers from mainline liberalism. It is, however, the view of the reformers themselves (and their later successors, such as Martin Chemnitz).

 

[Kliska]

I know that there are many definitions of Sola Scriptura, but this is not one of them. The position you describe here is a Catholic position, and the cc rejects Sola Scriptura.

I think perhaps you might want to ask the Lutherans present if what I said accurately defines an aspect of Sola Scriptura or not. I think you might be pleasantly surprised; sola scriptura does not in any way negate the role of teachers or tradition.

Then we come to the ability to discern what “contradicts scripture?” According to whose perception? For example, Catholics (as do all Churches planted by Apostles) believe Jesus meant what he said (literally) when he held the Bread in His hands and said “this is my body”. But all those who have departed from the Apostolic faith consider this statement “symbolic”. So whose belief “contradicts” scripture?

I was of the understanding that the RCC teaches the bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, not “His Body” and that the wine is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, not “His Blood,” and were commanded to eat AND drink. (Hence you guys don’t take it literally either.)

As with other scripture that the RCC agrees is symbolic, for example you don’t believe Jesus is a plant though He is the vine, protestants of my ilk see it in the representative sense that would never be labeled “just symbolic.” There is a profound, powerful and efficacious truth in the fact of the body and blood, the bread and wine… and in the Body of Christ, the church. But that’s a thread jack.

Although Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers and functions to reveal the Word of God to the heart, we also believe the HS does not lead believers in opposite directions. We are to understand the Scriptures according to the faith of those who produced it, so we read through a certain pair of glasses.

Right, you can’t blame the Spirit for the faults of man.

You are doing what most faithful Protestants do…you determine the meaning of the Scripture through prayer, study, and logic. You rely on your own abilities, given to you by God, to understand the meaning. This can be done in total isolation from the faith of the Apostles.

No, I rely on God. The faith of the Apostles is recorded in scripture. If something contradicts scripture, then it contradicts the faith of the Apostles. God gave us scripture, God gave us His Spirit. God gave us Apostles. God gives us teachers. God gives us a brain. It’s all about Him, and His power. You and I are not going to agree here, and that’s ok.

This is actually a very good description of Sola Scriptura.

It’s a part of Sola Scriptura, though here’s how it reads from a protestant; "Once God led me to it and I read and studied on it, I formulated, for me what I believed **based on scripture **and personal conviction {from said scripture read and understood with the help of the Spirit}. God begins it, God guides it, God convicts and convinces based on it, God inspired scripture, etc… Scripture is clear on something else; if we ask for wisdom, God shall grant it. If we seek, we shall find. The Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth. That’s why I don’t have to foam at the mouth and rend my clothes when another Christian disagrees with me. God is the Shepherd, as well as being a good Father, He’s in charge of the sheep, not me. If there is something He wants you (or me) to know or to change your (my) mind about, He’ll let ya (me) know.

Grace and Peace,
K

 

[benjohnson]

I think perhaps you might want to ask the Lutherans present if what I said accurately defines an aspect of Sola Scriptura or not. I think you might be pleasantly surprised; sola scriptura does not in any way negate the role of teachers or tradition.
/QUOTE]

As far as I can see, Kliska, the definition you gave is in agreement on how we Lutherans view scripture, and it’s role of correcting and rebuking false doctrine and dogma.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Within Lutheran tradition they are referred to as the antilogemena of the Old Testament (as James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 & 3 John, Jude and 2 Peter are the antilogemena of the New Testament). We refer to them inasmuch as they confirm doctrine contained in the primary books (the homolougemena). We do not use them to form doctrine in and of themselves.

Note that what I posted above does not represent Lutheranism in the US, which unfortunately suffers from mainline liberalism. It is, however, the view of the reformers themselves (and their later successors, such as Martin Chemnitz).

Thank you PC, I understand the gemenas.

What I don’t understand is the approach to Church history. Especially what I said here:

Me:

… it must be understood that it was what was used mostly by the Apostles and the Early Church.

The Masoretic Text was not finalized/put together until ~9th century.

In the absence of Paul criticizing or calling attention to the text available for Scriptures at the time. And keeping in mind that Paul excelled at Judaism and that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, who did not have a background in Judaism and who more likely than not used the Greek translation of Scriptures in their daily lives, and that Paul did not make any emphases on rejecting any books of what was considered Scriptures at the time.

Why make a distinction in the gemenas when there are so very few distinction in Church history and when all the Apostolic Churches don’t make that distinction at all? It seems to depart from Scriptural Tradition.

 

[clem456]

I was of the understanding that the RCC teaches the bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, not “His Body” and that the wine is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, not “His Blood,” and were commanded to eat AND drink. (Hence you guys don’t take it literally either.)

As with other scripture that the RCC agrees is symbolic, for example you don’t believe Jesus is a plant though He is the vine, protestants of my ilk see it in the representative sense that would never be labeled “just symbolic.” There is a profound, powerful and efficacious truth in the fact of the body and blood, the bread and wine… and in the Body of Christ, the church. But that’s a thread jack.

This is why competent authority interprets Scripture. We take literally what is meant to be taken literally, and figuratively what is meant to be taken figuratively. Christ did not command his followers in direct language to eat his bark and branches, did he?

Every denomination makes it’s choices. Not all can be correct. Period. And beyond mere correctness is unity. Not every choice of every leader of every denomination leads that community to the fullness of truth and grace. That is obvious unfortunately. This includes Catholics as well.

The Church has the authority through the touch and breath of Christ to teach Scripture in a definitive way. Other communities do not. Although they might also express the truth, the source of the truth lies in the one Church. There is only one Christ and he did not command his followers to teach contradictory doctrines.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thank you PC, I understand the gemenas.

What I don’t understand is the approach to Church history. Especially what I said here:

The Masoretic Text was not finalized/put together until ~9th century.

In the absence of Paul criticizing or calling attention to the text available for Scriptures at the time. And keeping in mind that Paul excelled at Judaism and that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, who did not have a background in Judaism and who more likely than not used the Greek translation of Scriptures in their daily lives, and that Paul did not make any emphases on rejecting any books of what was considered Scriptures at the time.

We do not, of necessity, favor the Masoretic text over the Septuagint. We have no “official” version. It is true that Luther translated from the Masoretic but it is not superior to the Septuagint in our view. Since the first and second generation Lutheran reformers (Luther excepted) viewed the DC books as Scriptural, it means they continued to use the Septuagint both personally and liturgically (excepting for that for common use, Luther’s Die Biebel would be used since it was in the German vernacular).

Why make a distinction in the gemenas when there are so very few distinction in Church history and when all the Apostolic Churches don’t make that distinction at all? It seems to depart from Scriptural Tradition.

The distinction between antilogemena and homologoumena does go back to the fathers. The Orthodox still make that distinction. Ever wonder why Revelation is not in the Eastern liturgical calendar? I would point you to Eusebius on this point.

 

[fred_conty]

originally posted by Kliska
I was of the understanding that the RCC teaches the bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, not “His Body” and that the wine is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, not “His Blood,” and were commanded to eat AND drink. (Hence you guys don’t take it literally either.)

But we do take it literally. When the bread is changed into the Body of Jesus, it truely is the Body of Jesus. It just so happens that where there is his true Body, then his Blood is also present, so teaches the church. And the same with the Blood, for where it is present then also the Body is also present, so teaches the church.

I believe you meant separated from one another. They were separated from one another on the cross when the soldier pierced his side which represented the separation of his Body from his blood…the sacrafice of the cross. This was the certification of death.

Which was pointed to at the last supper by Jesus when he himself took bread and changed it into his body, and the wine and changed it into his blood, and then said “that as often as you do this, do this in memory of me.” And he also said that “for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

At the Catholic Mass, this is the sacrifice of the cross, the body on the altar, and the blood in the chalice, which is the one sacrifice of calvary made present to us.

We cannot say on the day of Calvary, that his blood separated from his body is not also his body, soul and divinity, and likewise that his body separated from his blood is not also his blood, soul and divinity. And it is the same today as it was then at that time. But the presence of them both on the altar under different forms is signifying the certification of death…the sacrifice completed.

The Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. “The essential Sacrificial Action consists in the Transubstantiation alone.” (Sent. communis.)

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[clem456]

Specific beliefs aside, I’m curious if the non-Catholics reading (or Catholics for that matter) hold their beliefs, Scripture interpretations, doctrines, etc…to be definitively or objectively true. Or if the “universalist” position is taken, that any opposing or contradictory belief could also be true. I’m not talking about disciplinary matters, but the larger doctrinal issues.

 

[JonNC]

Kudos to you, steve b, for presenting your opinions in a cogent and reasoned manner!

I may not agree with all of what you have been arguing, but you certainly are able to meet their objections and refutations with some trenchant points.

:clapping:

I want to add to this. Steve has strong views on this subject, and he and I disagree, but he has brought up some good points, presented them well, and has not gotten personal. Too many times of late here at CAF, we are seeing more polemics instead of the vigorous but charitable discussions you and I are used to here.

I appreciate and have grown from my dialogue with Steve.

Jon