Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[Kliska]

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

No, no misapprehension. The teaching is that you can do one or the other, both are not required, because the conclusion has been drawn that both are the body, blood, soul, and divinity. In many places the laity received both, in many places just the bread.

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

Absolutely, and the thing that is a “symbol” can teach spiritual truth, and can serve as an outpouring of grace via faith. As I’ve said here and in other threads; most of us in Christendom are not as far off from each other as we sometimes think.

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?

That’s begging the question, and something I’m not here to debate. I respect that is what you believe and what the RCC teaches.

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?

As I posted in the Unity thread; the sign of unity was, and is, love. Recourse is to talk with one another, seek truth, and ask God for wisdom. The Holy Spirit is Who I trust; again not something we are that far off on. I recognize the difference, but it is only a step off. Not something I’m here to argue over as it has been argued for centuries.

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”?

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

This is all begging the question; asking those with a different view to accept your premises in the same manner you are asking us to accept your conclusion without the premises being supported and found “sound” first. Again, I’m not going there. I would say that we should be very hesitant to declare someone damned; for saying someone is “preaching a different gospel” is in effect, according to Paul, declaring them accursed. There are false gospels out there, but I can only speak for myself when I say that when we focus on Christ and preach Him, as revealed in scripture, as you believe you do, and I believe I do we have to be careful to not “damn” a brother or sister in the process. I’m not saying you are doing that, but by your question about “a different gospel” something could be being implied.

 

[PRmerger]

No, no misapprehension. The teaching is that you can do one or the other, both are not required, because the conclusion has been drawn that both are the body, blood, soul, and divinity. In many places the laity received both, in many places just the bread.

I assure you that at every Mass His Precious Blood is drunk. Literally. Out of a cup.
If not by the laity, ALWAYS by the priest.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

I find this difference interesting.

BOTH camps, those pointing out errors and those only emphasizing points of unity, have their place. And yet, both sides seem to discourage each other.

I understand your point, guanophore: that is how you were converted. But I can also point to many who were converted by a more aggressive approach. Tim Staples (by Matt Dula) comes to mind.

 

[clem456]

God is a divine person.
This section of the catechism speaks of a relationship. A person, God, reveals himself to humanity.

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

Personhood.
Perhaps it is no accident that a culture which gives almost no objective value to personhood cannot understand the authority that underlies scripture.

Divorced from the reality of the Incarnation and the human element of the Church, discussions about authority and authenticity only go round in circles. The Church is a concrete and visible reality, just as surely as Christ walked the earth in human flesh. Christ is not a gnostic theory. Real and currently living human beings have a share in his gift of authority. Obedience to authority is essential to being a Christian. Obedience is a good thing (despite what the culture is screaming in your ear). Christ himself was obedient unto death. Why should we consider ourselves above obedience to other persons?

 

[steve_b]

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

Thanks for the kind words. I echo that sentiment back. We are able to talk, even on key issues, disagreeing on things as we will do, without bringing the heat. That’s always a good thing.

 

[steve_b]

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.

I was responding to your response (emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by steido01 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

You’re misrepresenting Luther here by imposing the Catholic understanding of ‘canon.’ I don’t think you did it on purpose (you’re a logical guy), so I’ll clarify for you. The original Luther quote you’re referencing is from one of his sermons on John 16 (a beautiful starting block for eventual reunion, if you ever get the chance to read the entire thing). It reads,

Don,

When you bring up “the Catholic understanding of canon” As a Catholic, to answer your 1st point, I’m gonna get into history. Afterall, The CC didn’t come from the bible, the bible came from the CC.

As for who is misrepresenting Luther, are you denying that Luther had no apocrypha to his bibel, and that he did NOT take 7 OT books from the canon and put them in his apocrypha / index whichever term you prefer?
s1:

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.

I’ve used long quotes and short quotes from Luther. I’ve given the references to them usually with links (so full context can be read) , not from Catholic links but protestant links, and LCMS links as well.
s1:

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?

Don, when you corrected me you said “Note that Luther does **not **say Scripture, but Word of God.”

How am I supposed to take that correction? That looks to me like scripture and word of God are not the same. So I asked you for clarification.
s1:

I won’t answer questions built upon a faulty presupposition.

I could respond, I won’t acknowledge responses built upon faulty suppositions either. Although given the last 10 years on CAF, I respond all the time to them
s1:

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.

When you say “us” who exactly is “us”?
s1:

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.

I gotta tell ya, that’s funny. I almost spit all my coffee out on that one. Just a minute, while I wipe off my computer screen…
s1:

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

look at the rallying cry of protestantism. The solas came from Luther. And it’s still that way today for protestants regardless of stripe.
s1:

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.

Luither is the one who came up with the 66 book canon. To say he didn’t is not historical.
s1:

You mean that the Catholic Church considers the DC’s equal to the four Gospels?

This discussion isn’t about ranking canonical books with each other as to most important to least important.
s1:

The four Gospels obviously have more importance than, say, Leviticus.

The issue we’re talking about is books that are scripture vs those removed from scripture by Luther
lutherbibel.net/ click on the book on the first page. It will take you to the page with the books of Luther’s bible. Scroll down the page

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE)

1. They have4539 fabricated books which they call books of tables4540, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
   …2. But4541 since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians4542, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.
2. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand4543,’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed
   552
   good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
3. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second4544 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and4545 the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
4. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
5. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me4546.’
6. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

 

[JonNC]

The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE)

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Thanks, Jose.
When we Lutherans say we use a conservative approach, effectively a pre-Tridentine approach, this is what we mean. St. Athanasius’ opinion of the DC books is to be consider every bit as much as the Hippo, and Carthage, etc. And our method responds to these differing views in the history of the Church.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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).

Interesting. Do you include 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151?

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.

To be honest. I have not read these 2 terms in my studies. After knowing their definitions, I can see where their principle can be understood, Athanasius ~374 for example.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks, Jose.
When we Lutherans say we use a conservative approach, effectively a pre-Tridentine approach, this is what we mean. St. Athanasius’ opinion of the DC books is to be consider every bit as much as the Hippo, and Carthage, etc. And our method responds to these differing views in the history of the Church.

Jon

That’s what I thought Jon. Peace.

 

[steido01]

This discussion isn’t about ranking canonical books with each other as to most important to least important.

I disagree. The extent, clarity and proximity to/with which each book preaches the Word is precisely the measure for determining ‘canon’ (at least, it was for the early Church and remains so for Lutherans and the Orthodox). Contrast this to the post-Trent Catholic concept, which posits that ‘canon’ is a closed compendium, authoritative solely because Roma locuta est. This is our chief disagreement here.

As for your other points, Jon and Per Crucem addressed them well.

 

[spina1953]

I disagree. The extent, clarity and proximity to/with which each book preaches the Word is precisely the measure for determining ‘canon’ (at least, it was for the early Church and remains so for Lutherans and the Orthodox). Contrast this to the post-Trent Catholic concept, which posits that ‘canon’ is a closed compendium, authoritative solely because Roma locuta est. This is our chief disagreement here.

As for your other points, Jon and Per Crucem addressed them well.

Hi seido: Do you mean then that the canon of Scripture should not be closed and that there are other books that are Scripture that need to in Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

Hi seido: Do you mean then that the canon of Scripture should not be closed and that there are other books that are Scripture that need to in Scripture?

Not speaking for Don, but as I mentioned to Jose, the Lutheran approach is rather conservative, and considers the position of the Fathers and the early Church. So, if you’re thinking that Lutheranism would consider books that historically were rejected as canonical, that simply would not be the case.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Not speaking for Don, but as I mentioned to Jose, the Lutheran approach is rather conservative, and considers the position of the Fathers and the early Church. So, if you’re thinking that Lutheranism would consider books that historically were rejected as canonical, that simply would not be the case.

Jon

Hi Jon: I understand and I know that you are conservative in thinking, I know that even if the books are or were rejected by Luther, calmer heads prevailed if you have all of the books that the CC uses. Although of that I am not sure but all the same while Luther may have wanted to reject some of the NT writings they in the end were not and as for the OT not sure but will take your word that your bible has them. thanks. BTW, Don seems to rather different thoughts and opinions that you have and yours are the more reasonable.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon: I understand and I know that you are conservative in thinking, I know that even if the books are or were rejected by Luther, calmer heads prevailed if you have all of the books that the CC uses. Although of that I am not sure but all the same while Luther may have wanted to reject some of the NT writings they in the end were not and as for the OT not sure but will take your word that your bible has them. thanks. BTW, Don seems to rather different thoughts and opinions that you have and yours are the more reasonable.

I didn’t get the idea his thoughts were all that different. But even assuming they are, that would reflect a pre-Tridentine Catholic approach.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

I didn’t get the idea his thoughts were all that different. But even assuming they are, that would reflect a pre-Tridentine Catholic approach.

Jon

Hi Jon: There is always the possibility that I could be wrong or misunderstand. I do that a lot at times.

 

[steido01]

Not speaking for Don, but as I mentioned to Jose, the Lutheran approach is rather conservative, and considers the position of the Fathers and the early Church. So, if you’re thinking that Lutheranism would consider books that historically were rejected as canonical, that simply would not be the case.

Jon

Precisely.

You can always feel free to speak for me when Lutheran doctrine is concerned, Jon. Unless it’s adiaphora, but if that’s the case, who cares anyway?

 

[steve_b]

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

they ARE the Catholic Church.

Being somehow connected to the Church doesn’t make one Catholic or in the Catholic Church.

Don’t take my word for it.

Here is an Eastern Catholic bishop, talking about Catholic and Orthodox of which this bishop in the history of his particular rite, was part of the Orthodox at one time…
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome Don’t worry it’s only one page, large type so it reads quickly, but I think Bp John explains himself and the situation well.
J:

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.

Exactly. That’s all I was saying here as well. I do that because others who might just read this thread or any other thread, and don’t participate, don’t know to look on old threads for this connection.
J:

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

It’s pretty hard to validate that unless there is evidence, that can be properly referenced?
J:

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.

Did any of them change the canon? No.
J:

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.

People didn’t fight the canon like luther did. AND, scripture wasn’t taken as the sole source of faith for them.
J:

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.

Luther was still alive at this point. lutherbibel.net/ . Click on that bibel you immediately see top of the page. It will take you to the page showing Luther’s bible and how the books were classified by him.

The point I’ve made many times previously, once you identify certain books aren’t scripture, why even have them in the book one calls the bible? And natural consequences took place. Bibles were then printed without these books.
J:

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…:

…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.

Then Card Ratzinger was making a cogent point about the next life being Outside of time and what that means. Our concept of time is gone in eternity. Which means long or short is meaningless in eternity. However, for perspective, because we think in time and space, it means some people in eternity could be in purgatory till the end of the world whenever that comes. But at least on the bright side, they escaped hell. If the end of the world, isn’t for a billion years from now, or billions of years from now, then it’s possible some people could be there till then. While others it might be like running through the shower.

For example

Fr Alessio Parente a Franciscan priest, took care of Padre Pio for the last 7 years of Pio’s life. Padre Pio, now a Saint, told of an experience he had while saying mass. A Sacristan who died 70 years prior, had come to Pio during mass. He said while in this life he didn’t take care of the altar and sanctuary the way he should have. Neither physically or in his intentions. The Lord obviously allowed this sacristan to make an appeal to Padre Pio to offer his mass that day for him. And the sacristan said if Pio offered this mass that day for him, he would be allowed to advance to heaven. Now, the sacristan had no idea of time in eternity, but in actual years in this life, he was in purgatory for 70 of them.

In 99 when I visited San Giovanni Rotondo, Padre Pio’s residence, Fr Allesio told us of this and many other stories of Pio.

 

[guanophore]

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.

 

[PRmerger]

Some of the droll parts of scripture seem to be merely incidental but are nonetheless part of the whole.

My favorite droll part of Scripture is this verse, “My breath is offensive to my wife.”

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.

Indeed.

One has to wonder at the dramatic instruction (or, presumably, lack thereof) in this verse, “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself.”

But, clearly, both of the above verses are theopneustos, and are part of Revelation. Parts of the whole. And while we may find them droll or amusing, Revelation nonetheless they are.