Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

Nicely put.

 

[Per_Crucem]

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.

Yes, where we differ (that is, Catholics and Lutherans), we believe you to be objectively wrong.

 

[clem456]

Yes, where we differ (that is, Catholics and Lutherans), we believe you to be objectively wrong.

That’s a relief, oddly enough.
We disagree on some matters evidently, but at least both of us admit there is truth to be longed for and valued, that It is worth pursuing. This is a far cry from the nebulous faith that in effect proposes no firm position on anything, accepts anything as potentially valid.

There is a reason God chose Paul.

15‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

 

[steve_b]

I already said, as a member of the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you may not have that privilege, but the OHCAC is not only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

That’s the definition of being Catholic. Being in complete union with the chair of Peter, the pope of Rome.
J:

Its irrelevant.

I asked you “Describe Luther’s apocrypha. Name the books in it” it’s not irrelevant.

That point is the whole point. Luther’s apocrypha and what’s in it.
J:

So, are you bound to Luther’s opinion on this, because I’m not. But you did not answer the question:

For context

steve:

Those books you list are NOT canonical to Luther

.

Jon:

So, are you bound to Luther’s opinion on this, because I’m not. But you did not answer the question:

You tell me.
Is Tobit canonical? Luther included it.
Is Judith canonical? "
Is Eclesiasticus canonical? "
Is 1 Macc canonical? "
Is 2 Macc canonical? "
Is Baruch canonical? "
Is Wisdom canonical? "

If you say “yes” to any or all of these, then you have to say Luther included these canonical books in his translation.

steve:

Luther counted none of those books as scripture. And my point in earlier posts, they might as well NOT even be inbetween the cover of the bible. And they were ultimately eliminated by some 30+ versions of the bible, link previously provided…

Luther started all that, and look how everyone who called themself protestant of some stripe, followed along.

J:

The Local Synod at Rome was not a binding general council, as you know.

True it wasn’t a general council.
J:

But you have answered your question: regardless of who translated, Tobit, for example, it is canonical.

That’s not the question. Name one protestant sect, out of the 20 or 30,000 of them that thinks Tobit is scripture? I’m curious. Name one?
J:

Therefore, Luther’s translation includes the 73 books typically considered canonical in the western Church.

The Catholic Church is not just in the West.

When you say, “typically considered canonical” They have been this same canon since 382 a.d.
J:

Which non-Lutheran, non-Catholic western communion was required, forced by Luther to accept his opinion of the canon over that of the Bishop of Rome?

Until Luther, there was no big deal about the canon. And I never said Luther forced anyone to follow him. But follow him they did.
J:

And further, why does their opinion cause you such angst?

Look at the title of the thread. This subject is still part of the effects of the protest. Have any of the issues really gone away?
J:

Do you consider them canonical? Does your communion hold them to canonical? If so, when you read Luther’s translation of them, you are reading from the canon, Luther’s opinion notwithstanding.

Do protestants read them? Protestant bibles don’t even carry them. Who started that? It was Luther. Let’s not forget Luthers own words. Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures,

Maybe you’ve answered this before. Do you believe in purgatory?
the reason I ask, it fits in with praying for the dead. and in extension, if one is in heaven one needs no prayers. If one is in hell prayers do nothing for them. But purgatory? that’s where prayers help them but if someone doesn’t believe in purgatory they usually don’t believe in praying for the dead either. As you know, I’m thinking of (Macc)
J:

I think I already answered this. I consider them canonical, in a similar way that Cardinal Cajetan expresses it, so no, I do not agree with Luther’s opinion.

Jon

good for you

 

[Holly3278]

I honestly doubt that they do know what they are protesting. I have come across several Protestants who didn’t even know about the Protestant Reformation. Some of them didn’t even know that the Protestant reformers removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. Unfortunately I fear that ignorance is widespread amongst at least some Protestant circles.

 

[guanophore]

I’m definitely not making light of the role of others in the life of the church, and spreading the gospel by proclaiming it, but I also truly believe, because of scripture and experience that God does play a direct and intimate role when it comes to His sheep and keeping them moving and on the right path. We both believe that, in fact, but we disagree on the “how.”

I am not even sure we disagree on the “how”. Catholics affirm the direct, constant intervention by God in our daily lives through the Holy Spirt.

What we disagree on is that God will lead an individual in the opposite direction he has already led His Church. When one departs from the one for all divine deposit of faith, we consider that that they have misunderstood what the HS has said, since He cannot contradict Himself.

 

[guanophore]

The part I don’t believe is that I’m against the Church; of course I’m not, I’m a part of the Church. I help act a pillar and bulwark of the Truth along with all of my brothers and sisters in Christ that make up the ekklesia or out-called ones that is the church; Who is Truth? Jesus Christ; His life, death, and resurrection. For He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

This is true, but unfortunately most Protestants suffer from a deficient understanding of Church. They have been taught (as I was once myself) that the Church is the “body of believers on earth”. This is only part of the Truth. As you noted in your post above, when Paul was persecuting the Church, Jesus said “why are you persecuting Me?”. He is the Head of the Church, and the HS is her soul. These divine elements make her infallible and Holy.

The Church also contains all those who have gone on before us in faith to meet their heavenly reward, and they are not separated from us in Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

It’s important because of the following

As I said above how are they to know the truth and in extension their error unless someone shows them?

If I did not agree with this principle, I would not be here on CAF. However, one can do this by promoting Truth (as well as finding fault/deficiency) and in all cases, one can affirm the faith experience of our separated brethren. This is a basic evangelistic principle that is very clear in the NT. Especially Paul, who always finds some place of faith to begin even with Pagans.

Is it okay to leave them in error?

Yes. Love is the first thing, and if whatever we are doing is a wound to love and unity, then it is better just to pray for them. We cannot convert people, only the HS can do that. We can have fruitful dialogue, and present the reasons we believe as we do, and show why other beliefs are not Apostolic, but we may not be able to persuade them. They may not be ready, or they may be hardened. It is better to accept the differences in love and trust their souls to a faithful creator.

In effect saying to them just go about your business, be good protestants and I will be a good Catholic and kumbaya?

If it comes to dismantling what faith they already have, perhaps.

Is that loving one’s neighbor? One’s brother or sister in Christ?

I think that is a judgment call on an individual basis.

I obviously think it’s important for Catholics to step up to the plate and make a difference here.

But let’s leave those who don’t come around on a positive note so that we can still return to the conversation later.

That means we want for THEM what we have ourselves

Yes, I was wandering around in Protestant communities for 20 years. I can tell you I did not get taken back into the faith by having people point at me and accuse me of “guilt” for being separated. I was loved back into the faith, then the mental persuasion came later.

 

[Lek]

As a Catholic in an area with many non-Catholic’s I often hear that Martin Luther was a great man that saved the church through reformation. However, when the question is posed about the “need” for Martin Luther’s protest I hear explanations like… “Because the Catholic Church was corrupt” or “the church lost its authority”, et. Al. What I don’t understand, and my question is if the issue was corruption why change the dogma? If the issue was loss of authority, whether through corruption or some other reason, how do they explain Matthew 16:18. Would that not mean the church fell due to evil (“the gates of hell”)? If it did not fall then the teachings of the church were still sound, so why did Martin Luther (with no authority if his own) decide it truthful and appropriate to change teaching? If it did fall, how could that be, as it runs contrary to Jesus’s own words, which is “truth”?

Luther didn’t leave the catholic church based on his own authority, but rather on the authority of scripture. He studied scripture and realized that the church held dogma that was not in concurrence with what he read there. When he made known his beliefs, he was opposed by the church leaders and was eventually forced out of the church. I doubt that if Luther’s problem with the Catholic church was only concerning corruption and abuse of authority, he would have left. In fact, he really didn’t want to leave the catholic church, but was faced with the decision about whether to disregard what he believed to be the true teachings of the bible and remain, or to follow his conscience and be forced out. The catholic church probably helped the process of the reformation by declaring him a criminal and trying to hunt him down to be captured and punished instead of dismissing him quietly. This just gave Luther more notoriety and probably made him a hero in the eyes of many.

Lastly, I’d just like to say that a split in the church doesn’t come about just because of the actions of one man. In order for there to be a huge falling away, such as occurred after Luther’s excommunication, there would have to have been a huge number of christians that were disillusioned with the state of the church at the time. That number of people wouldn’t ordinarily be willing to leave the church that they had been brought up in and face the prospect of excommunication for a simple reason. It was as if the pressure had been building up and the lid came off. Without that underlying desire for reform of the people within the church, Luther would have never been remembered today.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12382779]That’s the definition of being Catholic. Being in complete union with the chair of Peter, the pope of Rome.

Certainly those in communion with him are part of the Church.

I asked you “Describe Luther’s apocrypha. Name the books in it” it’s not irrelevant.

That point is the whole point. Luther’s apocrypha and what’s in it.

Actually, it isn’t. Steve, way back on the other thread, we started with a dialogue about whether Luther included the 7 books in his translation. Obviously, he considered them apocrypha, along with the Prayer of Manasseh, which he also included.

For context

And that was Luther’s opinion.

True it wasn’t a general council.

But still important and worthy of regard.

That’s not the question. Name one protestant sect, out of the 20 or 30,000 of them that thinks Tobit is scripture? I’m curious. Name one?

Some Anglicans, and they make that determination on their own, just like Reformed, Baptists, and whoever.

The Catholic Church is not just in the West.

Sure. Neither is the Lutheran tradition. Or Orthodoxy. But in the history of the Church, Rome is typically spoken of as the Western patriarch.

When you say, “typically considered canonical” They have been this same canon since 382 a.d.

At least some have felt so, certainly a majority. Clearly you recognize that there have been many good Catholics before and after these local councils that disputed the canonicity of certain books, OT and NT. It wasn’t Lutherans who dreamed up terms like Antilegomena and Homologoumena.

Until Luther, there was no big deal about the canon. And I never said Luther forced anyone to follow him. But follow him they did.

The reason it wasn’t a big deal is because in the history of the Church, disputes about them were not considered a big deal. People were allowed their opinion.

Look at the title of the thread. This subject is still part of the effects of the protest. Have any of the issues really gone away?

The protest was against the civil authorities at the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529, but yes, it remains part of the disagreement between our communions, though as I said, our tradition has not dogmatically defined a canon.

Do protestants read them? Protestant bibles don’t even carry them. Who started that? It was Luther.

It wasn’t Luther. It was first done, AFAIK, in English translation, long after Luther’s death. German Lutherans still use Bibles with the DC’s, as Luther intended.

Let’s not forget Luthers own words. Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures,

and yet are profitable and good to read. And regarding some of them, he is even more adamant about their importance in his prefaces.

Maybe you’ve answered this before. Do you believe in purgatory?
the reason I ask, it fits in with praying for the dead. and in extension, if one is in heaven one needs no prayers. If one is in hell prayers do nothing for them. But purgatory? that’s where prayers help them but if someone doesn’t believe in purgatory they usually don’t believe in praying for the dead either

I see no reason to believe that prayers for the dead would only help them if they are in an intermediate state/place. What I believe is that we go through a cleansing/purging at the moment of our death for our entrance into Heaven. If I can speak of it as Cardinal Ratzinger did…:

"The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of ‘short’ or ‘long’ duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The ‘temporal measure’ of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an ‘existential time,’ in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the world.

…then I could say I believe in what Catholics refer to as Purgatory. So, the idea that prayer for the dead only benefits those who remain " ‘short’ or ‘long’ duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics" seems to miss the point.

good for you

Thank you.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Actually Luther was excommunicated for his teachings and doctrines that he had refused to recant. According to Luther, his doctorate gave him the authority and right to speak, however there were hundreds of doctors of theology in Europe during Luther’s time and most were far better educated but Luther believed that his doctorate was far superior to everyone else’s. Additionally, Luther’s image of himself centered on his being a teacher of Scripture, and so justified his opinions on his interpretations of Scripture. When Luther was excommunicated, he in effect lost the authorization to teach. The CC had the authority to withdraw the teaching authority of anyone who was not going to adhere to the accepted teachings of the Church. Luther made the point very clear that he was the highest authority and that his interpretations of Scripture were not to be questioned.

Although Luther continued to teach, His teachings and doctrines were not accepted by the CC nor by any university that taught Catholic theology. When Luther refused to recant any of his doctrines and teachings the CC had no choice but to excommunicated Luther who was already deciding to confront the CC and its authority by 1519.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I was wandering around in Protestant communities for 20 years. I can tell you I did not get taken back into the faith by having people point at me and accuse me of “guilt” for being separated. I was loved back into the faith, then the mental persuasion came later.

 

[MaryT777]

Actually Luther was excommunicated for his teachings and doctrines that he had refused to recant. According to Luther, his doctorate gave him the authority and right to speak, however there were hundreds of doctors of theology in Europe during Luther’s time and most were far better educated but Luther believed that his doctorate was far superior to everyone else’s. Additionally, Luther’s image of himself centered on his being a teacher of Scripture, and so justified his opinions on his interpretations of Scripture. When Luther was excommunicated, he in effect lost the authorization to teach. The CC had the authority to withdraw the teaching authority of anyone who was not going to adhere to the accepted teachings of the Church. Luther made the point very clear that he was the highest authority and that his interpretations of Scripture were not to be questioned.

Although Luther continued to teach, His teachings and doctrines were not accepted by the CC nor by any university that taught Catholic theology. When Luther refused to recant any of his doctrines and teachings the CC had no choice but to excommunicated Luther who was already deciding to confront the CC and its authority by 1519.

Well said, it’s that simple and succinct.
Mary.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, equal in the sense that they are all theopneustos, and are profitable for our instruction. I don’t think the qualifer is “importance”, because they are all important. Some parts of Scripture are more relevant to the successful working out of our salvation than others. In that regard, the Sermon on the Mount would be considered more relevant to the Christian life than the ordinances found in Levitical law.

 

[guanophore]

 Again, you're confusing Luther and Lutheranism.

Doggone it! How could any such thing happen, under the sun!?

 

[guanophore]

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.)

I think you lost me here. Are you under the misapprehension that Catholics do not both eat and drink?

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.”

Yes, there are different ways of understanding symbolism. A symbol can contain that which it also signifies.

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.

I agree, so let us get back to the point, which is 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?

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

Indeed not, and I do not find “blame” particularly helpful with regard to the faults of man, either.

The question remains. When interpretations seem to contradict, what recourse have we? How are we to be One, as Jesus and the Father are One?

The faith of the Apostles is recorded in scripture.p.quote]

We will all agree on this point, however, the way you and I understand the faith that is reflected in the pages may be diametrically opposed on some points. Catholics read scripture in the light of Sacred Tradition (the preaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit). All Protestants suffered some loss during the Reformation when separation from Sacred Tradition occurred.

What if certain interpretations of the Teachings of the Apostles are so divergent from what has been handed down to us that they constitute “a different gospel”?
Kliska;12381643:

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.

On the contrary, I agree with everything you have stated here.

I think what you are saying is that something may contradict another persons perception of what the Scriptures say.

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

Do you believe that God will lead an individual Christian into a direction/conclusion opposite of what He has already revealed to the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree, so let us get back to the point, which is 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?

Indeed. This is a question of great import.

And there is no answer that will be forthcoming, except some vague obfuscations and some references to the Holy Spirit guiding us, and that there’s sincerity that’s required, and there’s room for differences in beliefs.

The question remains. When interpretations seem to contradict, what recourse have we? How are we to be One, as Jesus and the Father are One?

Egg-zactly. A question of great import.

And there is no satisfactory answer, when one has no magisterium.

 

[PRmerger]

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.)

This seems to be a statement made borne out of ignorance. Of course, since you are not Catholic you need not be fully informed about Catholicism, but you ought to know that ***at every single Mass, ***from the rising of the sun to its setting, from the first Mass at the Upper Room to the private Masses in the papal chambers, to the youth Masses at World Youth Day, to the Masses attended by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Briget, and all our canonized saints…His Flesh and Blood are eaten AND drunk…if not by all the faithful present, by the Priest, who stands in for all the faithful.

Definitely, we take it literally.

 

[clem456]

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.

A person has many attributes. Some are obvious and noticeable. A beautiful face is striking and makes an impression. A personality can affect others in dramatic ways.

Some of the droll parts of scripture seem to be merely incidental but are nonetheless part of the whole.
And if revelation is, at it’s heart, a person, not a book, all these parts make up the whole of the body of scripture and are inseparable. None all give dramatic instruction, but nonetheless are part of a whole.