F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I guess you didn’t have the time or interest to read the link I provided in post #356.
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Actually, this would disprove Christianity altogether.Well, If that is true then no need to belong to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, due to the idea that God is not preserving doctrinal truth within His Catholic Church.
Christ and His Body. Both
or neither :bighanky:.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Just because the Catholics here can’t explain it to your liking is not proof that what the Pope taught is false. We’re just laypersons here. Perhaps you can ask your question at the apologetics section, or ask the priest at your local parish. Or maybe you aren’t looking for an answer as much as your trying to prove the Church wrong on any point that will work for you.
Heretics were on occasion burned at the stake. Get over it. You can take heart in that at least Martin Luther wasn’t burned at the stake.
S
steido01
Guest
Well, now we know how many Catholics today feel about us heretics. Thanks for the clarification.
D
Denise1957
Guest
It doesn’t have anything to do with how I feel about heretics. I happen to like most heretics. Here in the U.S., we still have the death penalty for serious crimes in some states. Heresy was thought of by a few popes (I have no idea how many) as a serious crime. We can’t really judge the situation today by the situation in the old days. Personally, I think that torture and the threat of death is not really a good way to get heretics to recant the crime of heresy. But I don’t judge Popes who thought differently than me. They did what they thought they had to do to keep heresy in check at the time. On the other hand, we see the terrible ramifications of what has happened to our society as a result of heresy taken to its logical end - that of everyone deciding for themselves what “truth” is.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, exactly. The assumptions made in this debate by at least some of the Roman Catholics, aren’t shared by us. I do not agree that there is a ‘1500 year old gap.’ When pope Gregory VII reformed the Church in around 1050-1080, did people start asking about the ‘1050 year old gap’? No, because they believed this was a reform which harkened back to a ‘purer faith’ (cf. Confessio Augustana I-XXI), and removed certain abuses (cf. Confessio Augustana XXII-XXVIII). As a Lutheran, I do not believe there was a ‘1500 year old gap.’ The Lutheran reform pointed to the Church Fathers, and to the development of the Church over the centuries.
But anyway, I have one rule that I often use in debates, and that is that if a person makes claim, yet refuses to cite any relevant sources, I see no obligation to even bother with the claims. There is an old Latin saying that puts it perfectly: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, ‘what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.’
So estesbob (or anyone else for that matter), I would like you to point out, in the confessions I am bound to, where you find the doctrines that show that there is such a ‘1500 year old gap.’ To be helpful, I can point out that these confessions are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism. I can assure you that you will not, in any of these confessions, find anything definitive about the number of sacraments, number of books in the Bible, Papal primacy as such, Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura. Of course that doesn’t mean that you cannot defend any of these partly on the basis of these confessions, but you would have to read it into them.
I can assure you, also, that as a Lutheran priest I do not hold to Sola Scriptura the way (online) Catholics believe it is supposed to be understood. It states nothing more than the fact that Scripture is the highest authoritative writing. But it is still supposed to be read in the Church, and interpret in the ecclesial community, in continuity with Tradition (cf. Confessio Augustana I-III, XXI). But I know that certain Catholic apologists have said that Sola Scriptura means we do not care about Tradition. But just as I always tell people interested in knowing what the Roman Catholic Church teaches to keep away from anti-Catholic sites and just read what the Roman Catholic Church teaches herself, I ask you to get knowledge about Lutheran beliefs from Lutherans.
When it comes to ‘faith alone,’ there are different way of seeing that. The Latin phrase used was iustificationem sola fide. But this can be read in two different ways. Iustificationem is a participle (from the verb iustificātiō, ‘justify’), and fide is a noun (‘faith’). The question is: Is sola (‘alone’) an adjective or an adverb? If it is an adjective, it modifies the noun (fide), and thus the sentence states that ‘being alone’ is an attribute of the faith that justifies, that you are justified by ‘a faith that is alone.’ If, on the other hand, you say that sola is an adverb which modifies the participle (iustificationem), the sentence states that faith alone justifies, but that faith itself isn’t necessarily alone.
In the first example faith is fides informis (a faith which is alone, unformed), while in the second example faith is fides formata (a faith which is formed by God’s love). As a Lutheran priest I believe the faith which justifies is fides formata, since Paul states that this is the faith which accounts for anything: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6, RSV) I believe that we are justified by faith alone, but not a faith which is alone. Is this acceptable for the Roman Catholic Church? This guy sure thinks so: “Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love.”
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I think the point is this:
If there was no gap, then the Church with whom the first protestants split was in fact the Church begun by Christ and endowed by Him with Authority to decide doctrine.
Therefore, giving them the benefit of the doubt, they must believe in a gap of some duration, else they are advocating outright rebellion against Christ-given authority, and therefore advocating sin.
S
steido01
Guest
I agree that we can’t entirely judge yesterday based on today; nor can we excuse the sins of the past because of the “enlightenment” of today. Sin is sin, and no amount of development can change that.
D
Denise1957
Guest
You seem to believe that the past Popes position on heretics and the Holy Ghost approving the burning or torture of them is a sin. You want us Catholics to use Protestant criteria to judge encyclicals of past Popes. Well I, for one, am not going to do it. I’m not a Protestant.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Then what about the Gregorian reforms?
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
What about them?
The were not a fracturing of the Body of Christ, nor were they in direct opposition to the Church which Christ founded.
K
KjetilK
Guest
No you are begging the question, defining ‘the Church’ as ‘the Roman Catholic Church.’
E
estesbob
Guest
So where was the Lutheran Church prior to Luther?
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I am defining it as the Catholic Church, which was the one in existence prior to the beginning of the “reformation.”
Which Church would you propose was invested with the authority that Jesus granted at that time?
K
KjetilK
Guest
The question in the OP begs the question. It assumes that ‘Protestants’ believe there is a ‘1500 year old gap’ (and/or that ‘they’ do not bother with anything before the 15th or 16th century), that Roman Catholic ecclesiology is correct, and that there is agreement on this between ‘Protestants.’And thus we see why the OP posed the question.
First, as we have already pointed out, Lutherans, for instance, do not believe there is a ‘1500 year old gap,’ and we refer to the Church Fathers.
Second, you cannot use Roman Catholic ecclesiology as a starting point of the discussion without begging the question. Take, for instance, the Roman Pontiff. Do you ask the Orthodox how they explain the ‘approximately 1054 year old gap’? Do you assume that because they do not recognise his supreme headship, his supremacy (as opposed to primacy), they have to explain this ‘gap’? The reason I’m asking this is because estesbob brought up Papal primacy, and that, as a member of the Church of Norway, I have a view of the Pope which is quite similar to the one espoused by the Orhodox (and, in the West, by the so called Anglo-Papalists). I believe that the Roman Pontiff is the Western patriarch, and that he has primacy. Unfortunately, the Church of Norway (the historic Church in my realm), is now out of communion with him. I wouldn’t particularly mind there being a ‘Roman Option’ for Lutherans (something similar to the Ordinariate), but I am convinced that we should be seeking an ecclesial solution – not just individual decisions.
Third, as a member of the Church of Norway, I am bound to these confessions; the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism. I read these in light of Church history as a whole. What I have now requested for the third time is for Catholics to actually show me, in these confessions, where these are wrong. But I can once again assure you that you will not, in any of these confessions, find anything definitive about the number of sacraments, number of books in the Bible, Papal primacy as such, Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura.
J
joe371
Guest
Exactly…Actually, this would disprove Christianity altogether.
Christ and His Body. Both
J
joe371
Guest
Well, none of the Protestant churches existed until, at best, the 16th century…I doubt you will get a /honest/direct answer…
My answer, as a former non-Catholic: The Catholic Church.
E
estesbob
Guest
So where was the Lutheran Church before Luther?
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
You’re ignoring my post #384, which addressed this.
Asking a non-related question (“What about the Gregorian reforms?”) didn’t address it at all.
Perhaps. But IF you’d consider my post #384, you’d see that this is a charitable assumption, else the original inventors of Protestantism would be committing a grave sin, on purpose.
The ol’ red herring is getting pretty smelly.
IF you convert to EO, then we’ll discuss this.
Tell you what: address our catechism and tell me which paragraphs you disagree with and why, and then I’ll address your confessions.
One major problem is that many of the terms are re-defined. I could agree with much of what is written, except that you’ve changed the meaning of what it says. It’s like trying to argue with Humpty-Dumpty.
- Status