Follow up on SS

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I guess one could misconstrue what I said that way. Then again, I did in an earlier post state that I do not believe the ECF’s can be used to defend either position.

Ok, if I did misconstrue your position, then please spell it out for me so I can understand it better.

Some people are duplicitous, I suppose. I’m sure that occurs among apologists of all flavors.

I’m not so sure I would be so harsh with ‘them’. It seems only natural that Lutherans would give Luther a ‘pass’. All I am saying is that from my perspective it is an extremely consistent and obvious phenomenon. As an example - the standard of proof that you seem to require for Catholic beliefs vs. the much less stringent standard that you require for things like SS and SBFA. Again though, the term ‘duplicitous’ was your term. I will say though that in my experience, this phenomenon of the double standard is exceedingly common in Protestant apologetics.

I don’t think one finds them explicit in the councils, anymore than papal suopremacy.

Please define ‘supremacy’ so I will know what the standard is.

Primacy? Absolutely. Authority within his see? Clearly.

It appears to me that you are admitting that Papal Primacy and Papal Authority are more evident in the Ecumencial Councils than Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone, and yet it was you who brought up the ‘lack’ of evidence for Papal (something) in the Councils? Please correct me if I have this wrong.

It doesn’t.

I don’t think it does either. In fact the 11th century schism was much less a challenge to Catholic Doctrine than the 16th century ‘reformation’. In my mind, the abuses of the Church leading up to the 16th century did not logically demand a wholesale denial of so many established doctrines. Then of course, there were denials of the denials within Protestantism and then denials of that etc, etc. on out until we have the ‘situation’ that we have now in Protestantism.

That’s because the issue is noot so simplistic as “he invented it” or “he didn’t invent it”.

Ok Jon, you have my full attention. Various Protestant Scholars have indicated that Luther developed Sola Scriptura and another was posted yesterday. You say that it isn’t that simple. Please explain with specifics, preferably with the comments of a reputable Scholar. I really want to make sure that I understand your position.

I said that, if you believe that Luther invented SS, then one must accept that the Lutheran practice is the proper use of it.

I have to admit that I don’t understand how the second must follow the first. First of all though, if Luther actually did ‘invent’ SS, then we (you really, not me) would have to have a logical explanation as to how something supposedly so obvious in Scripture (as Luther claimed about all of his beliefs) could somehow be so completely unrecognized by the prior 1500 years of Christians. I don’t think there is an answer that gets us past that problem.

There is the possibility of course, one that you seem to deny, that Luther may have been right in his being the first Christian to “recognize” SS as being what God wanted us to use to correctly understand Scripture, but at the same time, had incorrectly understood exactly how Scripture should be used within the framework of SS. After all, when we look at Luther’s ‘track record’ on things like the Jews, Anabaptists, Peasants, Marriage, the Pope, etc., etc., we have absolutely no choice but to be suspicious of his radical never before ‘discovered’ beliefs.

In addition, when we look at the actual results of SS, meaning massive Protestant doctrinal dissention, how can we look at SS as being something which is anything other than ‘of man’? It seems to me that the historical record shows SS to be what it is.

On the other hand, if you want to claim that the Lutheran ‘use’ of SS is better than that of any other communion, then it falls to you to explain, specifically and exactly why. I would suggest that you cannot do that any more than any other SS communion can explain to you as to how their ‘method’ of using SS is better than yours. In fact, those other Protestant communions are doing nothing more than using, for themselves, the ‘authority’ that Luther pronounced for himself. Because it was Luther who provided the precedent for rebelling against established teachings, when faced with dissenting beliefs and groups, neither Luther then nor Lutherans now can object. In reality, Luther’s SS (+PI) made it inevitable that there would be massive doctrinal conflict within the SS communions. As such, there really wasn’t (and isn’t now) anything that Luther then or present day Lutherans today could say to justify the superiority of their beliefs about how to ‘use’ Scripture, or anything else for that matter.

It is, IMO, clearly a post-apostolic era practice.

I agree. It was a post-apostolic invention. That being the case, we should be able to identify, historically, who, it should be attributed to.

I am looking forward to your explanation about how the invention of SS is not so simplistic and how Luther is somehow ‘not responsible’ for SS.

What I have found over the years is that various opinions are revealed for what they are when the ‘specifics and the exacts’ behind them are revealed What also helps are the (pesky) follow-up questions which help to reveal the quality of various arguments.

May God Continue to Bless You Jon, Topper

Part 2 to follow

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Yes, you’ve completely misunderstood.
A) they use sola scriptura of their own volition. That’s their choice. We believe they are using it wrongly. No where did I say they intentionally use it wrongly.

I would be interested to hear about how you can justify the claim that ‘they do it wrong’, using of course, language that they could not turn back on you by simply replacing the names of your respective communions.

B) The Lemming Doctrine is the notion that everyone who sues sola scriptura uses it because Martin Luther came up with it, and that they therefore followed him (but really didn’t because they believe different things). Luther is not responsible for the choices people make. Other protestant groups and communions make their own decision. They have the choice of choosing the Catholic Church and its model as well.

Actually, Luther is responsible for setting the precedent of SS+PI, by which so many, as you would have to admit, have been led to false beliefs. Luther is rightly known as the originator of the Protestant ‘reformation’ and should also be known as the originator of SS, and as such, is responsible for the results of SS.

I can’t speak for others. My own position is that the actions of the Lutheran Reformers were not in a vacuum. Even the CC in its Catechism acknowledges blame on both sides.
Luther was bombastic, at times rude and crude, and often stubborn. I also think, at times, he over-reacted.

That’s putting it mildly.

Other Lutheran reformers less so. There were Catholics of similar stripes, as well. Both sides are to blame.

Of course there is blame on both sides. But – the Catholic Church did not ‘invent’ Sola Scriptura and in fact, many in the Church warned Luther, repeatedly, that SS would result in exactly what has taken place. Obviously Luther was wrong not to heed those warnings.

the opinion that none of the abuses warranted division is, frankly, easy to say now. It may not have been so easy in central Europe in the early 1500’s.

This is one of those generalized inferences that are extremely easy to say but is extremely difficult to substantiate. Of course, I fully recognize that many people are more than a little inclined to accept statements like this with no supporting information whatsoever. To some, things which appear to support the Reformation need not be supported by evidence or even logic.

This is also one of those statements which are revealed for what they are by digging a little deeper into them and requesting additional information. That being said, you suggest that the situation of the 1500’s might have made the division of the Church seem justifiable. I would like to know specifically what you think might support that statement, especially given the fact that Luther was warned that what he was doing was going to divide the Church.

I did not say it was inappropriate for us to discuss. I said it was presumptuous for you or I to say that our leaders do not know about or refuse to discuss the matters of history.

From what I have experienced, Lutherans especially are not altogether willing to discuss the specifics of Luther’s career, and his impact on Christian unity. I have read documents of the Dialogue and have not seen any evidence other than generalized statements as to the causes of the Protestant separation from the Church. Again, from my experience, discussing Luther’s ‘role’ in doctrinal dissention is the third rail, and I cannot imagine that the Lutheran Scholars who are participating in the Dialogue are any different. If you know differently then please post the information.

I can claim to be president of the United States. That doesn’t make it so. One’s authority is not determined by what one claims.

As you know, Luther made some claims about his personal authority that sound extremely strong compared to your beliefs about his real authority. What you are really saying is that Martin Luther, who broke away from the Catholic Church on his own personal authority, did so with an understanding of his own authority that you personally do not support, at all. In other words, by extrapolation, you are admitting that Luther started the ‘reformation’ with an overinflated sense of his own authority.

As we both know, Luther’s personal claims to authority for FAR past your understanding of his real authority.

We have differing views of how that looks, quite honestly.

We agree again. As a way to test our differences, I have a question for you.

Do you think that it is possible for even a small portion of Lutheranism, or a specific Lutheran denomination to someday be reunited with the Catholic Church and the Bishop or Rome, without renouncing the Lutheran Confessions?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
I think its ok to express a belief on how we think things should have gone, so long as we recognize the facts you state here. We were not there. We do not know all of the inter-relationships of the time, etc. Its complicated.

I generally agree. I reject the notion that the Spirit has abandoned the Church, or that He abandoned the Church until 1517. I continue to believe that the Spirit works through His Church, scattered and divided though it may be, to guide us into all truth.

I have always considered this a bold statement be the Catholic Church, considering some of the vitriol that the CC has endured through the centuries from protestant communions, even mine, and in contrast to some CC statements of the past. Much of the ecumenical movement credit belongs to the CC.
It gives me much hope for the future of His Church,regardless of how divided it is at present. The gates of Hell will not prevail.

Jon

 

[joe371]

I continue to believe that the Spirit works through His Church, scattered and divided though it may be, to guide us into all truth.

Jon

The only confusing thing, for me anyway, about that idea is: where can truth be found in view of the fact that Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church is so scattered and divided, in terms of doctrinal unity? Just one example - does the Baptist Church have truth regarding the Eucharist, as opposed to the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church, all of which have a different understanding of truth?

 

[JonNC]

The only confusing thing, for me anyway, about that idea is: where can truth be found in view of the fact that Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church is so scattered and divided, in terms of doctrinal unity? Just one example - does the Baptist Church have truth regarding the Eucharist, as opposed to the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church, all of which have a different understanding of truth?

And that is the clear issue. ISTM we depend on grace. We would agree that those who reject the real presence are, sadly, wrong. Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are. But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans provide testimony to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth. A lot depends on how we do it.

But I can say this, if I eventually end up where you are, and I swim the Tiber, I will forever thank God for the swimming lessons I received as a life-long Lutheran.

Jon

 

[commenter]

And that is the clear issue. ISTM we depend on grace. We would agree that those who reject the real presence are, sadly, wrong. Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are. But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans provide testimony to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth. A lot depends on how we do it.

But I can say this, if **I eventually end up where you are, and I swim the Tiber, I will forever thank God for the swimming lessons I received as a life-long Lutheran.
**
Jon

And you will, of course, be expected to keep teaching us from that lesson book if you do swim - or even if you don’t.

 

[JonNC]

And you will, of course, be expected to keep teaching us from that lesson book if you do swim - or even if you don’t.

I am honored. Thank you.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I am honored. Thank you.

Jon

As Catholics we too can learn from our separated brethen in Christ.

God Bless you Jon,hope is all well.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11953088]Hi Jon,

I would be interested to hear about how you can justify the claim that ‘they do it wrong’, using of course, language that they could not turn back on you by simply replacing the names of your respective communions.

How we use the practice of sola scriptura is outlined under the heading of:
**Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm According to which all dogmas should be judged, and the erroneous teachings [controversies]that have occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way. ** in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

If others reject the creeds, for example, they have changed the practice. If others do not recognize the Church’s role in determining doctrine and dogma, they have changed the practice. Rejecting these is not the practice of sola scriptura, by our definition.

I have read documents of the Dialogue and have not seen any evidence other than generalized statements as to the causes of the Protestant separation from the Church. Again, from my experience, discussing Luther’s ‘role’ in doctrinal dissention is the third rail, and I cannot imagine that the Lutheran Scholars who are participating in the Dialogue are any different. If you know differently then please post the information.

Example, from usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

1. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice “has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries” (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, “with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article…” (§12). Behind Luther’s typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. “Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry” (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. “When they have given up their purgatorial ‘Mass fairs’ (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine’s word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers’ works or words” (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

Do you think that it is possible for even a small portion of Lutheranism, or a specific Lutheran denomination to someday be reunited with the Catholic Church and the Bishop or Rome, without renouncing the Lutheran Confessions?

Do you think it is possible for the Catholic Church to accept the Augsburg Confession as a Catholic confession, as Cardinal Ratzinger once pondered?
The answer to both is, the dialogue and the issues are not so simple. But if Lutherans and Catholics can come to agreements such as the document I referenced here, and the JDDJ, and numerous others over the last 50 to 60 years, my sense is that the Spirit can guide us closer together, and even perhaps to unity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

As Catholics we too can learn from our separated brethen in Christ.

God Bless you Jon,hope is all well.

The thing is, it is I who have learned so much from people such as commenter and yourself, and a long list of others, many Catholic, but others who are not. My long stay here has been a true blessing to me.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

The thing is, it is I who have learned so much from people such as commenter and yourself, and a long list of others, many Catholic, but others who are not. My long stay here has been a true blessing to me.

Jon

Glad to hear! But I too have learned from the many Lutherans here and your specific church traditions and teachings. It is good know rather than assume what others believe and teach.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11953082]
Ok, if I did misconstrue your position, then please spell it out for me so I can understand it better.

Sure.
Other communions are responsible for what they do. Whether or not they follow the Lutheran model of the practice of sola scriptura or some derivative, they make their own choice. They also have the choice of following the Catholic / Orthodox model. It is a matter of choice and free will. Luther holds a gun to no one’s head.

I’m not so sure I would be so harsh with ‘them’. It seems only natural that Lutherans would give Luther a ‘pass’. All I am saying is that from my perspective it is an extremely consistent and obvious phenomenon. As an example - the standard of proof that you seem to require for Catholic beliefs vs. the much less stringent standard that you require for things like SS and SBFA. Again though, the term ‘duplicitous’ was your term. I will say though that in my experience, this phenomenon of the double standard is exceedingly common in Protestant apologetics.

Topper, I’m not requiring Catholics to do or believe anything. The vast amount of what Catholics believe I believe. All I said was that I don’t believe there is taught explicitly or even implicitly universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in the ecumenical councils of the early undivided Church. My friend Nicea325 here and I have discussed this often. His point, as I recall, is that there was no need for the councils to be explicit about something already assumed. My point is that if it were something already assumed, why did it a millennium ago to the present day play such a large role in the Schism of the Church.

But I see your point, if the practice of sola scriptura is not explicit in the councils, why do I accept it, while not accepting supremacy (universal jurisdiction) of the Bishop of Rome? In part, because the CC considers universal jurisdictions doctrine (my understanding), where sola scriptura is a praxis, and not a article of faith that binds the conscience of the believer. But from my perspective, I have often said that regardless of the terms, if Orthodoxy and the CC were to come to agreement about the nature of the pope’s primacy, and come to full unity, I would gladly enter the unified Church.

I don’t think it does either. In fact the 11th century schism was much less a challenge to Catholic Doctrine than the 16th century ‘reformation’.

And yet it has lasted a thousand years, twice as long as the Reformation.

In addition, when we look at the actual results of SS, meaning massive Protestant doctrinal dissention, how can we look at SS as being something which is anything other than ‘of man’? It seems to me that the historical record shows SS to be what it is.

Question: why was the Bishop of Rome unable to overcome this simple German Augustinian friar’ new and innovative practice?

I am looking forward to your explanation about how the invention of SS is not so simplistic and how Luther is somehow ‘not responsible’ for SS.

Regardless of the level of Luther’s responsibility for the practice of sola scriptura, others are responsible for their own choices. Even within Lutheranism, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord was written by the second generation Lutherans. Lutherans of today are responsible for our continued practice of sola scriptura. Not Luther.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

And that is the clear issue. ISTM we depend on grace. We would agree that those who reject the real presence are, sadly, wrong. Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are. But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans provide testimony to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth. A lot depends on how we do it.

But I can say this, if I eventually end up where you are, and I swim the Tiber, I will forever thank God for the swimming lessons I received as a life-long Lutheran.

Jon

As you know, Luther and Zwingli got into quite a battle over the nature of the Eucharist, with Luther claiming a version of the Real Presence and Zwingli denying it. Luther hated Zwingli with a passion, primarily over this issue.

Your response to Joe seems to indicate that you believe that the Holy ‘Spirit is working to lead us to truth’, of course with the understanding that Catholics, Lutherans the Orthodox, and (some) Anglicans are ‘properly led’, whereas those who deny the Real Presence have somehow gotten it wrong. You also state that “Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are” (wrong). Please correct me if I have misunderstood you but – when you say: “A lot depends on how we do it”, I am assuming that you mean how we choose to interpret Scripture.

I think we should face the fact that, according to his logic, far more than half of Sola Scriptura Christians, have ‘gotten’ the nature of the Eucharist wrong (according to your understanding of this Sacrament). This should cause you to wonder about the validity of Sola Scriptura. After all, if more than half the people could get something so important so wrong, that must mean that the ‘method’ by which they determined that particular belief was errant. The fact is that they use the same ‘means’ as you do.

That being said, from the (Lutheran) Sola Scriptura perspective, the reason that those non-Real Presence Christians came to believe falsely about the Eucharist is because they have either ‘used’ the wrong portions of Scripture or have possibly incorrectly interpreted the right Scriptures. In the case of Zwingli vs. Luther it was the both:

“The substance of the controversy was far from being the straight alignment between reason and tradition that it has sometimes been represented as. Both sides assumed the inerrancy of Scripture and appealed primarily to the same biblical arguments……In a long and learned controversy neither side convinced the other, but each became so exasperated as to believe the other possessed of the devil……The division of Protestants of course weakened them.” Dr. Preserved Smith, “The Age of the Reformation”, pg. 109.

As soon as Luther developed Sola Scriptura serious differences of opinion were inevitable and in fact – commenced – immediately. Again, Luther was warned that this would happen but foolishly pursued his radical course:

(In regards to the Leipzig Debate of 1519) – “Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly , as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become part of the spiritual equipment of humankind.” Marius, pg. 186

Obviously Marius places the a significant degree of responsibility for Protestant fragmentation on Luther’s reliance on the individual conscience, meaning of course – his.

Part two to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part 2

Sola Scriptura does not work. It is not a method capable of producing doctrinal consistency or stability. Only doctrinal confusion. Of course people can pretend if they like (and many do) that they personally, or their denomination, interprets Scripture “correctly”, but when pressed as to exactly how they have come to that conclusion, their arguments fall far short of being compelling.

As we have read, SS was a 16th century innovation so it can’t be shocking that immediately upon it’s introduction, there began a tremendous uptick in doctrinal diversity. Of course SS advocates can claim that Scripture Interprets Scripture, which of course does, but the reason that SS went completely off the rails is that it was a rebellion against the authority of the Church, and just as importantly, disconnected Scripture from the Traditions of the Catholic Church.

SS advocates can claim if they like (and they do), that they don’t deny the role of Tradition (or tradition), but in fact, by claiming the authority to judge and pick and choose amongst various aspects of Tradition, they again, have rejected the historic role of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

When disconnected from the Traditions of the Catholic Church, Scripture becomes the tool of anyone who wishes to find whatever they want to find, as the history of the Sola Scriptura movement proves conclusively.

Jon, people don’t have a reason to do any ‘swimming’ as long as they believe that their doctrinal beliefs are correct and that those of others are not if they are in disagreement. I would suggest that people begin to prepare to swim when, among other things, they come to recognize Sola Scriptura as being an unreliable means by which to establish doctrinal beliefs. Of course there is the also the realization that the Catholic Church does not employ SS.

If SS has been proven to be unreliable, and the Authority of the Church, which teaches only one thing and not multiple things per issue does not, then it would mean that only the Catholic Church COULD be reliable. This of course does not mean that it must be, only that it is the Catholic Church could be reliable in it’s teachings.

Since SS does not work, it seems to me that the only logical alternative to settling on the Catholic Church as being what it claims to be is the disturbing belief that God does not care what we believe. Of course, the erosion of Christianity is taking us in this very direction, led by the way by non-confessional branch of Protestantism, which continues to grow as a percentage of Protestantism as a whole.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Topper, just a couple of thoughts.

=Topper17;11956760]

Your response to Joe seems to indicate that you believe that the Holy ‘Spirit is working to lead us to truth’, of course with the understanding that Catholics, Lutherans the Orthodox, and (some) Anglicans are ‘properly led’, whereas those who deny the Real Presence have somehow gotten it wrong. You also state that “Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are” (wrong). Please correct me if I have misunderstood you but – when you say: “A lot depends on how we do it”, I am assuming that you mean how we choose to interpret Scripture.

I’m sorry that you spent time on two posts based in part on a misunderstanding. Here is what I said: And that is the clear issue. ISTM we depend on grace. We would agree that those who reject the real presence are, sadly, wrong. Scripture and the historic Church provide evidence that they are. But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans provide testimony to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth. A lot depends on how we do it.

When I said “A lot depends on how we do it”, it was immediately following, “But as long as the Catholic Church, The Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans **provide testimony **to the of His real and substantial presence, His Spirit is working to lead us to truth”.

Therefore, I was referring to how we provide that testimony. Do we provide it with Christian love and charity, being willing to give testimony to the particular truth? If so, ISTM that this provides the Spirit the means to turn hearts and minds on this issue.

Now, to be sure, I am in no way saying the Spirit is not guiding those who reject the real presence (given here as simply an example). Paragraph 819 of the Catholic Catechism also appears to hold this position; *"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 *

"Understanding that it comes from a Catholic POV, I generally agree with this.

I think we should face the fact that, according to his logic, far more than half of Sola Scriptura Christians, have ‘gotten’ the nature of the Eucharist wrong (according to your understanding of this Sacrament). This should cause you to wonder about the validity of Sola Scriptura. After all, if more than half the people could get something so important so wrong, that must mean that the ‘method’ by which they determined that particular belief was errant. The fact is that they use the same ‘means’ as you do.

No more than it should cause you to wonder about the validity of Tradition when it comes to, for example, the IC.
And this is the point; regardless of the methods used, human Christians have come to disagreements regarding doctrine. This was true long before the Reformation. It is the history of the Church. Scripture isn’t flawed. The Holy Spirit isn’t flawed. We are. All of us.

That being said, from the (Lutheran) Sola Scriptura perspective, the reason that those non-Real Presence Christians came to believe falsely about the Eucharist is because they have either ‘used’ the wrong portions of Scripture or have possibly incorrectly interpreted the right Scriptures.

Not according to Luther. Luther sites not only scripture but the Fathers:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

continued

 

[JonNC]

And Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, further sites the historic Church, both East and West.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Scripture, the Church, the Fathers. You asked earlier how we practice SS differently. Now, I don’t know if Zwingli referenced the Fathers in defense of a symbolic presence, but what I’ve read of the Fathers, and of the Church Catholic, it seems to me the real presence has be the doctrine of the Church for, essentially, 2 millennia.

(In regards to the Leipzig Debate of 1519) – “Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly , as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become part of the spiritual equipment of humankind.” Marius, pg. 186

Perhaps, and apparently Chemnitz did, too. See my signature.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Since SS does not work, it seems to me that the only logical alternative to settling on the Catholic Church as being what it claims to be is the disturbing belief that God does not care what we believe. Of course, the erosion of Christianity is taking us in this very direction, led by the way by non-confessional branch of Protestantism, which continues to grow as a percentage of Protestantism as a whole.

As you clearly here acknowledge, confessional Lutherans are not part of the relativist movement. But you comment leads to another question:
Why is the Catholic Church the only logical alternative? Why not the EO, or the OO, or the PNCC, or the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht? Perhaps you can provide a spirited, positive, reason why you say this!

His peace,
Jon

 

[marywarfield]

How we use the practice of sola scriptura is outlined under the heading of:
**Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm According to which all dogmas should be judged, and the erroneous teachings [controversies]that have occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way. ** in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

If others reject the creeds, for example, they have changed the practice. If others do not recognize the Church’s role in determining doctrine and dogma, they have changed the practice. Rejecting these is not the practice of sola scriptura, by our definition.

Example, from usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Do you think it is possible for the Catholic Church to accept the Augsburg Confession as a Catholic confession, as Cardinal Ratzinger once pondered?
The answer to both is, the dialogue and the issues are not so simple. But if Lutherans and Catholics can come to agreements such as the document I referenced here, and the JDDJ, and numerous others over the last 50 to 60 years, my sense is that the Spirit can guide us closer together, and even perhaps to unity.

Jon

I kind of doubt it Jon just from reading this. Some
things aren’t changeable for the Church and unfortunately
those particular things MUST be believed and
professed on penalty of ex communication.

Such as Purgatory. Purgatory did not begin with
the Catholic Church. Belief In an intermediate
stage between heaven and hell in which prayer
assisted existed thousands of years before Christ
in the Jewish religious life.
And we have ample archeological evidence that
the first Christians continued right on with it.

The problem Jon as I see it is saying something
should not be done that was akways done religiously
in the Judeo Christian spectrum because it is barely
mentioned is in the vagaries of history.

In other words, we have plenty of documentation discovered
during archeological digs, or historical research, that
we know is valid but not necessarily pertinent, but
expands knowledge of God.
You also know many many different accounts existed
that were considered for inclusion in the Testament
equally valid as the Gospels chosen but were either
not quite clear, or were redundant, or could not
be authenticated.

The bottom line Jon is this- Purgatory being in different
forms such an ancient practice among the Jews, and
the early Christians coupled with the fact that the
Jews to this day and Catholics continue the belief,
indicates it is worthy of consideration along with
significant fact of it’s bare mention in the Bible.

We can’t know how it came about as there is no
record of it and the mention of the practice in the
Bible does not refer to the beginning of the belief.
Quite possibly it came forth directly from God but
the means lost at least for now to history.

So if we throw out an ancient belief like that that
does have mention in the Bible, based on our own
determination that what WE all assembled thousands
of years later and based only on what was available
in 397 Ad as being the ONLY
authority? That could be a real problem.

Those types of dogmas that are based almost entirely
on ancient Jewish and early Christianity that have
a sentence or two in OUR modern creation of
what is Holy Scripture, must be maintained and believed
until they are either verified or can factually be proven
as NOT from God but man made entirely.

See what I mean? The reason the Bible should not
be considered the ONLY authority for Christians is
that it was assembled/created hundreds and in some
cases thousands of years after the fact. We need
tradition to balance out those not quite understandable
to us.

And on another point- authoritatively- if praying for
the dead is not to be done- why in the Bible were
they doing it? Haha.
That’s the Church’s point: We don’t know how it came
about, or when, it is not a contradiction of Christian doctrine
Jesus Mary and Joseph as observant Jews probably
observed it, it’s unbroken in practice, it does have a
couple mentions in practice so oh yeah we had
better keep it you bet.

And again that is why we are called Judeo-Christians
and our faiths Judeo Christianity.
We, you and me are Christian Jews so to speak.
And we can’t throw out our Jewishishness on
a whim or on the suggestion of an obvious anti
Semite.

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;11957748]I kind of doubt it Jon just from reading this. Some
things aren’t changeable for the Church and unfortunately
those particular things MUST be believed and
professed on penalty of ex communication.

Such as Purgatory. Purgatory did not begin with
the Catholic Church. Belief In an intermediate
stage between heaven and hell in which prayer
assisted existed thousands of years before Christ
in the Jewish religious life.
And we have ample archeological evidence that
the first Christians continued right on with it.

The problem Jon as I see it is saying something
should not be done that was akways done religiously
in the Judeo Christian spectrum because it is barely
mentioned is in the vagaries of history.

In other words, we have plenty of documentation discovered
during archeological digs, or historical research, that
we know is valid but not necessarily pertinent, but
expands knowledge of God.
You also know many many different accounts existed
that were considered for inclusion in the Testament
equally valid as the Gospels chosen but were either
not quite clear, or were redundant, or could not
be authenticated.

The bottom line Jon is this- Purgatory being in different
forms such an ancient practice among the Jews, and
the early Christians coupled with the fact that the
Jews to this day and Catholics continue the belief,
indicates it is worthy of consideration along with
significant fact of it’s bare mention in the Bible.

It is interesting, Mary, that you use the example of Purgatory here. The comments of Father Tavard, and Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict followed by the release of the Catholic /Lutheran document, *The Hope of Eternal Life *, is a prime example of how dialogue between our communions indicates progress.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather is it the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.”

Pope Benedict: * "It is clear that we cannot calculate the ‘duration’ of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning — it is the heart’s time, it is the time of ‘passage’ to communion with God in the Body of Christ.*

From the document:

Agreements

1. Catholics and Lutherans agree:

**1. During this life, the justified “are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (see Gal. 5:16; Rom. 7:7-10)” (JDDJ, 28; cf. Trent DS 1515 and 1690 and LC, Baptism, paras. 65-67236).

1. This struggle is rightly described by a variety of categories: e.g., penitence, healing, daily dying and rising with Christ.

1. Borne in Christ, the painful aspects of this struggle are a participation in Christ’s suffering and death. Catholic teachings call these pains temporal punishments; the Lutheran Confessions grant they can, "in a formal sense,"237 be called punishments.

1. This ongoing struggle does not indicate an insufficiency in Christ’s saving work, but is an aspect of our being conformed to Christ and his saving work.238

1. The effects of sin in the justified are fully removed only as they die, undergo judgment, and encounter the purifying love of Christ. The justified are transformed from their condition at death to the condition with which they will be blessed in eternal glory. All, even martyrs and saints of the highest order, will find the encounter with the Risen Christ transformative in ways beyond human comprehension.

1. Christ transforms those who enter into eternal life. This change is a work of God’s grace. It can be rightly understood as our final and perfect conformation to Christ (Phil 3:21). The fire of Christ’s love burns away all that is incompatible with living in the direct presence of God. It is the complete death of the old person, leaving only the new person in Christ.

1. Scripture tells us little about the process of the transformation from this life to entrance into eternal life. Categories of space and time can be applied only analogously.**

and further:

Convergences

1. Today, Lutheran and Catholic teaching integrates purgation with death, judgment, and the encounter with Christ. Recent Catholic and Lutheran understandings of purgation sound remarkably similar. While the word “purgatory” remains an ecumenically charged term, and for many Catholics and Lutherans signals a sharp division, our work in this round has shown that our churches’ understandings of how the justified enter eternal glory are closer than expected.

1. In light of the analysis given above, this dialogue believes that the topic of purgation, in and of itself, need not divide our communions

continued

 

[JonNC]

We can’t know how it came about as there is no
record of it and the mention of the practice in the
Bible does not refer to the beginning of the belief.
Quite possibly it came forth directly from God but
the means lost at least for now to history.

So if we throw out an ancient belief like that that
does have mention in the Bible, based on our own
determination that what WE all assembled thousands
of years later and based only on what was available
in 397 Ad as being the ONLY
authority? That could be a real problem.

As you can see, the basics of purgation are not throw out by Lutherans.

Those types of dogmas that are based almost entirely
on ancient Jewish and early Christianity that have
a sentence or two in OUR modern creation of
what is Holy Scripture, must be maintained and believed
until they are either verified or can factually be proven
as NOT from God but man made entirely.

See what I mean? The reason the Bible should not
be considered the ONLY authority for Christians is
that it was assembled/created hundreds and in some
cases thousands of years after the fact. We need
tradition to balance out those not quite understandable
to us.

And if you read carefully what the confessions say, we do not consider only the Bible.

And on another point- authoritatively- if praying for
the dead is not to be done- why in the Bible were
they doing it? Haha.

Lutherans don’t reject prayer for the dead. From the Apology:
*“Regarding the adversaries’ quoting the Fathers about the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not ban.” *

That’s the Church’s point: We don’t know how it came
about, or when, it is not a contradiction of Christian doctrine
Jesus Mary and Joseph as observant Jews probably
observed it, it’s unbroken in practice, it does have a
couple mentions in practice so oh yeah we had
better keep it you bet.

And again that is why we are called Judeo-Christians
and our faiths Judeo Christianity.
We, you and me are Christian Jews so to speak.
And we can’t throw out our Jewishishness on
a whim or on the suggestion of an obvious anti
Semite.

As you can see, Mary, it is important to understand our theology, just as it is important for us to understand yours. As Luther said in his essay, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, “When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are…”

Lutherans have thrown out nothing of our Judaic heritage.

Jon