Follow up on SS

[Nicea325]

The topic of your post was not whether Cyprian accepted the authority of the Catholic Church but whether he accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome. How much he may have agreed with that bishop on other matters, it only takes one example to show that he did not accept Rome’s ultimate authority.

newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

Nope! Try again! If he did not why did he bother to take another serious matter to Rome for a final decision? Again…he took it straight to the Bishop of Rome. Hence, how could he NOT accept Rome’s aulitmate authority?

The historical case:

Cyprian is dealing with Basilides and Marcial, he **begs **Pope Cornelius (251-253) not to accept their appeal. St.Cyprian asks Pope Stephen I (254-257) **to intervene **in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian; he urges the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and replace him with a Catholic bishop.

Comment: Where did Cyprian get the idea the Bishop of Rome has such a power or duty?

You are making Cyprian appear has if he were “wishy-washy” with Rome’s authority.

Give me ONE place in any of his writings were he explicitly states he does not approve of Rome’s authority?

 

[SyCarl]

Nope! Try again! If he did not why did he bother to take another serious matter to Rome for a final decision? Again…he took it straight to the Bishop of Rome. Hence, how could he NOT accept Rome’s aulitmate authority?

The historical case:

Cyprian is dealing with Basilides and Marcial, he **begs **Pope Cornelius (251-253) not to accept their appeal. St.Cyprian asks Pope Stephen I (254-257) **to intervene **in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian; he urges the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and replace him with a Catholic bishop.

Comment: Where did Cyprian get the idea the Bishop of Rome has such a power or duty?

You are making Cyprian appear has if he were “wishy-washy” with Rome’s authority.

Give me ONE place in any of his writings were he explicitly states he does not approve of Rome’s authority?

Do you accept that Stephen stated that those baptized by heretics did not have to re-baptized? Did Cyprian accept that view? Why did he call a council to deny it if he felt Stephen had ultimate authority?

But look at a letter he wrote to another bishop about Stephen.

Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: “If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion.”

Certainly an excellent and lawful tradition is set before us by the teaching of our brother Stephen, which may afford us a suitable authority! For in the same place of his epistle he has added and continued: “Since those who are specially heretics do not baptize those who come to them from one another, but only receive them to communion.” To this point of evil has the Church of God and spouse of Christ been developed, that she follows the examples of heretics; that for the purpose of celebrating the celestial sacraments, light should borrow her discipline from darkness, and Christians should do that which antichrists do. But what is that blindness of soul, what is that degradation of faith, to refuse to recognise the unity which comes from God the Father, and from the tradition of Jesus Christ the Lord and our God!

But as no heresy at all, and equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against Christ the Lord God?

Does he give glory to God, who communicates with the baptism of Marcion? Does he give glory to God, who judges that remission of sins is granted among those who blaspheme against God? Does he give glory to God, who affirms that sons are born to God without, of an adulterer and a harlot? Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated?

newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

 

[Nicea325]

Do you accept that Stephen stated that those baptized by heretics did not have to re-baptized? Did Cyprian accept that view? Why did he call a council to deny it if he felt Stephen had ultimate authority?

But look at a letter he wrote to another bishop about Stephen.

newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

And why did he go to Rome to have the pope with men from his own diocese? I’ll ask again:

Give me one place in ANY of his writings were he denied or rejected Rome’s authority?

And by calling a council is concrete proof he rejected the Bishop of Rome’s authority? Are you aware of a bishop’s jurisdiction within his own diocese?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, it seems the bolded part is commentary on Nicaea’s resolution. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome as ‘Reesh Patriarch’ (as the Syriac Churches say) doesn’t deny the Primacy of each Patriarchate over the Patriarchal Territory. The Council did not transfer churches from Rome to Alexandria, but insisted that for local disputes and conflicts, ordinations and blessing of Holy Myron, all authority rests with Alexandria for the region. (Antioch for that region, etc). It seems to me, the Council, with Rome’s approval, is attempting to prevent someone’s appealing for Roman intervention for regional matters, for good order.
This is clearly seen when read together with the previous Canons promulgated:

The council had Rome’s, approval, and the approval of the other patriarchates, as well.

It seems to me it was typical practice that matters were brought to Rome for help in resolving issues, so I’m not sure that that was the intention. But that they did does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they thought Rome had some for of supreme jurisdiction.
Canons 4 and 5, again, seem to support the notion of equal jurisdictions, as the Orthodox article I quoted seems to support.

Jon

 

[SyroMalankara]

The council had Rome’s, approval, and the approval of the other patriarchates, as well.

It seems to me it was typical practice that matters were brought to Rome for help in resolving issues, so I’m not sure that that was the intention. But that they did does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they thought Rome had some for of supreme jurisdiction.
Canons 4 and 5, again, seem to support the notion of equal jurisdictions, as the Orthodox article I quoted seems to support.

Jon

While this is true on the local (internal) level, there has been instances of Roman “intervention”/“interference”/“involvement” (call it what you want, too many perspectives to consolidate) at various times.

But this is neither here nor there, because as a Westerner, the Bishop of Rome would have jurisdiction over you as your direct Patriarch. And why shouldn’t he?

Is your stand simply academic, in that you can’t accept the Roman Patriarch’s authority as Westerner, until the Roman Patriarch formally acknowledges he does not have the same over Easterners?

If not just academic, why should it matter for you in praxis/practice how the Bishop of Roman’s authority and jurisdiction extend to the various Eastern Churches as Reesh Patriarch?

I should note that in quoting Orthodox sources, please be sure to note the specific source because not all Orthodox view Patriarchal or Roman authority and jurisdiction equally. The Syriac and Chaldean Churches, for example, give much more authority and jurisdiction to their Patriarch-Catholicos than the Byzantines have historically.

 

[JonNC]

While this is true on the local (internal) level, there has been instances of Roman “intervention”/“interference”/“involvement” (call it what you want, too many perspectives to consolidate) at various times.

But this is neither here nor there, because as a Westerner, the Bishop of Rome would have jurisdiction over you as your direct Patriarch. And why shouldn’t he?

Is your stand simply academic, in that you can’t accept the Roman Patriarch’s authority as Westerner, until the Roman Patriarch formally acknowledges he does not have the same over Easterners?

If not just academic, why should it matter for you in praxis/practice how the Bishop of Roman’s authority and jurisdiction extend to the various Eastern Churches as Reesh Patriarch?

Hi Syro,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear about this. I agree that the Bishop of Rome is the western Patriarch, and by quoting the confessions, ISTM that should be the view of Lutherans. Our point is that he assumes for himself a level of authority and supremacy not granted in the councils or scripture. That needs to be resolved, in some way, in order to restore unity.
I think the same can be said of Orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Thank you!

Indeed! Precisely why I stated, one of the steps involves the bias of the author.

Hi Nicea325: You are welcome. When I saw your post I thought this is what is needed as some it seems or appears read history by some historian and not seeing that maybe the historian might need to be questioned since what is read might not be correct or the events not accurate, or the sources are not primary or secondary and just an opinion to say the least not backed up with anything more then just a position taken. There have been many historians I have read that for whatever reason who have distorted the facts or events to suit their own needs, so I just do not take it as fact. I read once for example that Corn was grown in Italy during the time of Christ and other historians also said the same thing but the truth of the matter is that corn was a new world crop and not known in Europe till the 15th century. I cite this as just one example of why one needs to discern any historian as to how facts are interpreted. It does not good just believe whatever some historian says. Also some common sense helps.

 

[SyCarl]

And why did he go to Rome to have the pope with men from his own diocese? I’ll ask again:

Give me one place in ANY of his writings were he denied or rejected Rome’s authority?

And by calling a council is concrete proof he rejected the Bishop of Rome’s authority? Are you aware of a bishop’s jurisdiction within his own diocese?

He called a council that more than 80 bishops attended. That was not limited to his own diocese.

Trying to establish a positive position by arguing from silence is not a very strong argument. I think I can safely say that no one has definitely denied that I am the smartest person in the universe. In fact many people come to me for advice which must mean that I am the smartest.

Reversing the question, can you show concrete proof that Cyprian accepted the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome? Can you cite any early church father in the first couple of centuries who asserted the absolute authority of the Bishop of Roman? I mean other than the Bishop of Rome himself.

 

[SyCarl]

And why did he go to Rome to have the pope with men from his own diocese? I’ll ask again:

Give me one place in ANY of his writings were he denied or rejected Rome’s authority?

And by calling a council is concrete proof he rejected the Bishop of Rome’s authority? Are you aware of a bishop’s jurisdiction within his own diocese?

Cyprian denied that any bishop had authority over another. If no bishop has that authority and the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, then the Bishop of Rome doesn’t have the authority.

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, **nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; **since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Nicea,

Nope! Try again! If he did not why did he bother to take another serious matter to Rome for a final decision? Again…he took it straight to the Bishop of Rome. Hence, how could he NOT accept Rome’s aulitmate authority?

The historical case:

Cyprian is dealing with Basilides and Marcial, he **begs **Pope Cornelius (251-253) not to accept their appeal. St.Cyprian asks Pope Stephen I (254-257) **to intervene **in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian; he urges the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and replace him with a Catholic bishop.

Comment: Where did Cyprian get the idea the Bishop of Rome has such a power or duty?

You are making Cyprian appear has if he were “wishy-washy” with Rome’s authority.

Give me ONE place in any of his writings were he explicitly states he does not approve of Rome’s authority?

What baffles me is how people come to the conclusion that this or that Father agrees with their point of view. Unfortunately there are many website sources out there which are ‘less than intellectually honest’. They provide people with a ‘reputable source’ from which to quote. In this I don’t fault the people who are only trusting this or that site or book. However, I DO fault the people who knowingly misrepresent the Fathers.

In the case of Cyprian, to suggest that he was something less than accepting of Papal Supremacy is to be taken in by those whose motives are not exactly pristine. In fact, Cyprian is one of the earlier Fathers who was very definite on the matter.

“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, (Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A. D. 251)

“(Pope St.) Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men…when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant, which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church.” Cyprian, (Letters 51:1 (A. D. 251).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare – a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics – set sail and bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the Chief Church from which priestly unity takes its source.” {Letters 54:14 (A. D. 252)]

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another alter or for there to be another priesthood besides that one alter and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” “Letter of Cyprian to All His People”, [43 (40) 5], A. D. 251

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they even dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” Cyprian, “Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome”, [59 955), 14], A. D. 252

It is baffling to me how non-Catholics claim that these kinds of quotes mean something other than what they clearly say, or claim that the Fathers were not infallible and so they can be dismissed, or that they do not say ‘enough’, or etc, etc, and yet somehow justify a bunch of ‘reformers’ turning Christian doctrine on its head 15 centuries after the time of the Apostles. Where is the precedent for what the ‘reformers’ did? The answer – it is ALL OVER the writings of the Fathers, because that was exactly the kind of thing that the Fathers were constantly battling.

It seems to me that Protestants pay lip service to the command in Scripture to Unity, but refuse to even consider how Protestantism has gotten so far off track. It also seems to me that, given mans fallen nature, and especially the failure of SS to achieve any form of unity, the ONLY way that Christians can be unified doctrinally is if there is a physical head on earth - a physical head in whom God has placed His Authority to maintain that Unity.

Just a thought.

God Bless You Nicea, Topper

 

[joe371]

The topic of your post was not whether Cyprian accepted the authority of the Catholic Church but whether he accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome. How much he may have agreed with that bishop on other matters, it only takes one example to show that he did not accept Rome’s ultimate authority.

newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

So, Cyprian accepted the final authority of the Catholic Church, or the final authority of sola scriptura?

Regarding Cyprian deferring to the authority of of the Bishop of Rome: if I show you a quote where he does defer to the Petrine office, will that change your mind?

 

[rfournier103]

Cyprian denied that any bishop had authority over another. If no bishop has that authority and the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, then the Bishop of Rome doesn’t have the authority.

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Is primacy not authority enough for you?

 

[Nicea325]

Cyprian denied that any bishop had authority over another. If no bishop has that authority and the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, then the Bishop of Rome doesn’t have the authority.

Really? Like…seriously? Even with scores of historical evidence from Cyprian clearly says otherwise. I am not going waste time posting plenty words from Cyprian own mouth to prove he DID NOT agree with you on the matter.

Quote:
For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Really? What makes you believe I have not seen or the read the notorious quote? I am very aware of the above and it is always used as a smoking gun against Rome. Been there…done that with the above quote. To bad for you, when the above quote is read in its entire and proper context-trust me, the above in no shape or form denies Rome’s authority.

So please…refrain from using the same ole redundant Protestant arguments and taking quotes out-of-context to prove an argument, which has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over X 1,000,000. Seriously!
You can try as hard you wish to make the ECF appear Protestant-not going to happen!

You got ONE place in any of Cyprian’s works were he clearly rejects Rome’s primacy and authority?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,

What baffles me is how people come to the conclusion that this or that Father agrees with their point of view. Unfortunately there are many website sources out there which are ‘less than intellectually honest’. They provide people with a ‘reputable source’ from which to quote. In this I don’t fault the people who are only trusting this or that site or book. However, I DO fault the people who knowingly misrepresent the Fathers.

In the case of Cyprian, to suggest that he was something less than accepting of Papal Supremacy is to be taken in by those whose motives are not exactly pristine. In fact, Cyprian is one of the earlier Fathers who was very definite on the matter.

“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, (Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A. D. 251)

“(Pope St.) Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men…when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant, which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church.” Cyprian, (Letters 51:1 (A. D. 251).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare – a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics – set sail and bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the Chief Church from which priestly unity takes its source.” {Letters 54:14 (A. D. 252)]

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another alter or for there to be another priesthood besides that one alter and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” “Letter of Cyprian to All His People”, [43 (40) 5], A. D. 251

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they even dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” Cyprian, “Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome”, [59 955), 14], A. D. 252

It is baffling to me how non-Catholics claim that these kinds of quotes mean something other than what they clearly say, or claim that the Fathers were not infallible and so they can be dismissed, or that they do not say ‘enough’, or etc, etc, and yet somehow justify a bunch of ‘reformers’ turning Christian doctrine on its head 15 centuries after the time of the Apostles. Where is the precedent for what the ‘reformers’ did? The answer – it is ALL OVER the writings of the Fathers, because that was exactly the kind of thing that the Fathers were constantly battling.

It seems to me that Protestants pay lip service to the command in Scripture to Unity, but refuse to even consider how Protestantism has gotten so far off track. It also seems to me that, given mans fallen nature, and especially the failure of SS to achieve any form of unity, the ONLY way that Christians can be unified doctrinally is if there is a physical head on earth - a physical head in whom God has placed His Authority to maintain that Unity.

Just a thought.

God Bless You Nicea, Topper

It is called pure denial!

 

[Nicea325]

He called a council that more than 80 bishops attended. That was not limited to his own diocese.

Trying to establish a positive position by arguing from silence is not a very strong argument. I think I can safely say that no one has definitely denied that I am the smartest person in the universe. In fact many people come to me for advice which must mean that I am the smartest.

Reversing the question, can you show concrete proof that Cyprian accepted the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome? Can you cite any early church father in the first couple of centuries who asserted the absolute authority of the Bishop of Roman? I mean other than the Bishop of Rome himself.

You are the smartest person-what part of the universe? Because in my part of the universe, evidently you are NOT the best historian. My argument from silence? As I stated, you are NOT the smartest historian.

U-huh…the typical response. Cannot answer, so let us start playing the “reverse- the -table” on you.

So you…got that one piece from Cyprian where he clearly declares in words, the denial or rejection of Rome’s authority?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

We need to let Luther rest in peace. He is NOT responsible for all Protestant movements or for most of SS. And the topic is on SS not Luther.

With all due respect (and it is considerable), revealing the connection between Luther and SS and Protestant doctrinal dissension makes some people uncomfortable, including some Catholics, but that doesn’t mean that we should not discuss that connection.

For the record, I never said that Luther is ‘responsible for all Protestant movements.’ But I have said that he is ‘at least to some degree’, which is hardly a stretch. The Ozment quote from post 330 makes the connection between Luther and the divisions amongst Protestants extremely clear. If a Harvard Professor has the freedom to explore that relationship, it would seem that it is not exactly a wacky concept and therefore out of bounds here.

As for the topic being SS and not Luther, given that he either ‘invented’ or ‘discovered’ SS, I’m afraid he is included in the discussion. So far all we have seen is a few seemingly isolated quotes from various Scholars which might not yet provide a complete understanding of the full role of Luther. It seems that the thing to do is to organize the quotes of about 20 Scholars, most of which are Lutheran, into a narrative which very clearly makes the connection between Luther, SS, and Protestant Doctrinal dissension.

In my opinion, Reformation Scholars are sort of like the Fathers. But like the Fathers, what is important with Reformation Scholars is the consensus. With these Scholars, anybody can quote one of them (especially of their own stripe) to make a point. What is more difficult, and more compelling, is when it can be shown that the Protestant Scholars overall, support a relatively Catholic historical point.

From memory, I know of about 20 different quotes from different Reformation Scholars who support the Luther – SS – Protestant dissension connection. I am sure there will be more as we move ahead. Maybe once all of these Scholars have had a chance to air their opinions, people here will have a better understanding of Luther’s role with SS and doctrinal confusion.

If SS is worth discussing, and it is obvious that a lot of us think that it is, then both the origin of, and the results of SS are worth discussing.

To begin our review, Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert is reposted from “Luther and His Times”:

“Once he was fully prepared to understand just what the Bible did teach on the doctrines of sin, grace, penance, and salvation, he was ready to rebuild the whole system of theology on the basis of his own exegesis and the study of the Bible in the original languages. Luther discovered Sola Scriptura, therefore, long before he was prepared to say just what the Bible taught in all matters of doctrine. In the meantime, too, he needed to master the languages through which, he, as an exegete, might rebuild the Pauline theology of the New Testament in terms of a sixteenth-century environment.” Schwiebert, pg. 174

Of course, this goes to the 640 million soul question: By What Authority Did Luther, (on the basis of his own exegesis), rebuild the whole system of theology?

Of course we are also interested in Private Interpretation as it pertains to SS. After all, even with Sola Scriptura, everybody has to ‘add’ something by which they interpret it. Some ‘add’ the authority of their particular communion, but initially, Luther ‘added’ Private Interpretation, namely his own. Lutheran PhD Henry Linderman comments on Luther’s belief in PI, which by the way is condemned by Scripture:

“When through his translation (1522) Luther placed the Bible into the hands of every Christian, he was convinced that the principal of private judgment is correct.” Henry Linderman, (Lutheran Ph.D.), “Martin Luther, Man of God”, pg. 46.

Given that Scripture warns against PI, how in the world did Luther think that he was right in teaching it? Didn’t he know what would happen in terms of massive doctrinal dissension?

As we move forward the connection between Luther, SS, and Protestant doctrinal dissension will become more clear. Some might think that 20+ quotes would be something of an overkill, but in my experience, some will still find a way to dismiss them.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Nicea,

Thanks for your response.

It is called pure denial!

But what is the psychological reason for that denial? Ozment makes the following comment:

“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing that it has believed in vain.” Steven Ozment, “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 6

We should notice did Ozment did not make the same comment about the Catholic temperament. It would seem that the reason for the difference lies in the completely different manner in which Protestants and Catholics come to their doctrinal beliefs. Catholics trust that Christ established the Church and sends the Holy Spirit to preclude that Church from teaching improperly on matters of faith and morals. As evidence of this, the Catholic Church and ALL Protestant churches taught that artificial birth control was a sin – until about 1920. Now, virtually none of the Protestant communions have maintained that position. The Church ALONE (Solo Romo) has actually had the guts to keep from caving on what turned out to be a whole lot more important than it appeared in 1920.

Protestants on the other hand, whether they be ‘totally PI’ or claim to be “Confessional”, still, to one degree or another, believe that they are led individually by the Holy Spirit to correct doctrinal beliefs. That belief is like a drug addiction. It appeals to the ego to such a degree that the ego will not allow the Christian to seriously doubt their beliefs. To doubt is to risk losing that ‘specialness’.

What the Catholic believes is not tied up in the ego, in fact just the opposite. When I ‘swam’ I had to sort through all of the various doctrinal issues, the Scripture and Fathers etc, but the part that was by far the hardest was battling the ego which did not want to admit that I was not ‘special’ enough to know better than everybody else. I will say though that once I did get to the other side and finally got ‘dried off’, the sense of joy is hard to describe.

“For a Protestant to conclude “I was wrong” is hard enough, but to be forced to that conclusion by a Catholic? Unacceptable. Of course we know that Protestants change their denominations and doctrinal beliefs ALL THE TIME, but when you get to the bottom of it, especially with the non-denominationals, the belief is that the Holy Spirit for some reason wanted me to believe that ‘other thing’ last year but since that time, has ‘convicted’ me to believe correctly, meaning what I believe now. Of course there is that pesky of ‘next years belief’. It defies logic and reason, but then (again) it was Luther who called reason the ‘devil’s whore’.

God Bless You Nicea, Topper

 

[commenter]

The Vatican hierarchy, perhaps, Jon. But go to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and say that the Catholic Church is immune to secular norms.

I don’t need to go to Los Angeles, I see secular norms sometimes in local “Catholic” colleges, religious orders, etc. In fact I see secular norms sometimes in myself. The fact that people depart from the 2014 Magisterium’s upheld, proclaimed, fixed norm does not disprove the truth of the Magisterium, nor the need for a living, current Magisterium to actively hold up that fixed norm.

The validity of the Magisterium is not affected by what percentage agree with it, whether we happen to live under Arianism or Obamacare. We can measure that a given priest, religious order or evangelical denomination has departed from Christian orthodoxy because there is a current, living agency (Magisterium) not elected by popular opinion to point out when they are wrong (and when they are right).

Some Protestant churches continue to follow Christian orthodoxy but don’t see the need for a current living Magisterium, since these churches are guided by a powerful safety net of Scripture, ECF’s, denominational Confessions or equivalent authoritative documents of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, or other, as well as the community of scholars and good people. You can see therefore they are in a much safer place than those other, formerly solid churches that went heretical since 1960. Those unprotected souls were limited to Scripture, ECFs, denominational Confessions, and the community of scholars and good people to guide them.

OK, forgive an old man’s sarcasm, but you can see my point.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi Syro,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear about this. I agree that the Bishop of Rome is the western Patriarch, and by quoting the confessions, ISTM that should be the view of Lutherans. Our point is that he assumes for himself a level of authority and supremacy not granted in the councils or scripture. That needs to be resolved, in some way, in order to restore unity.
I think the same can be said of Orthodoxy.

Jon

By resolved, do you mean, come to an Orthodox Byzantine model, an Orthodox Syriac/Chaldean model, an Orthodox Synodal Russian model, anything but the actual Western/Latin model?

Either way, what prevents you from accepting the Pope’s authority and supremacy within the Latin Church, which has been recognized over and again by Western Councils and with Scripture cited time and again?

 

[commenter]

… it remains a good thing for other communions to resemble her.
(i. e. the Catholic Church)
But if the claim of universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction has the effect of dividing the Church (not even speaking of Reformation communions), then it seems that a primacy of unity is difficult to employ.
Jon

I focus on your term “immediate”. There was a time before rapid communications when it took at least a generation for good or bad ideas to travel far. The local Catholic or Lutheran bishop may have been all the “pope” most laity needed. Secular authorities killed Christians but seldom redefined Christianity. Patriarchs denounced each other, but for 99% of Christians the Faith was handed on as before. Over the long run, denominations did indeed “resemble” Rome, in embracing the Tradition. And the “long run” was sufficient since there was ample time to discern and respond to good and bad ideas back then.

What about the world of 2014? What about the speed of bad ideas today? Do you think there are other authorities - like the Media - that might try to redefine “Good” and “True” today? This may inform our understanding of what kind of response is needed, and how “immediate” it needs to be.