How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[FathersKnowBest]

In the Apology or Defense of Confessio Augustana (Apol.), Philip Melanchthon points out that both the Saints and the Angels pray for us, yet that doesn’t mean that they are to be invoked (see Apol. XXI:8ff). Note that they do not here, nor in Confessio Augustana XXI, state that you cannot invoke saints, but that this cannot be certain and thus cannot be laid upon the conscience of the faithful (Apol. XXI:10-13).

It is also important to note that these things aren’t certain. They are constantly arguing on the basis of Scripture, and they are holding up Scripture as the ultimate norm, ‘the norm that norms (but which cannot itself be normed)’ (norma normans or norma normans non normata). Tradition, especially the creeds, are defined as ‘the norms which can be normed by (nothing more than) Scripture’ (norma normata). See here.

That means that if a case can be made, from Scripture, that we can, or should, invoke the saints for prayer, then that trumps the testimony of both Confessio Augustana and its Apology. I happen to believe that such a case can be made. The best examples, in my opinion, are found in the Revelation of John: “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (5:8) “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.” (8:3-4)

But don’t you see that this is pitting your interpretation of scripture against others’?

And their argument is furthermore based on Scripture and would be changed should they be convinced otherwise, from Scripture.

No, not from Scripture, but from a personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Does Rome say that they are invalid? Does Rome call them ‘ecclesial communities’?

Didn’t know that was the definition of validity.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So can I.

In all cases, the word “catholic” is used. Words mean things, and “catholic”, whether capitalized or not, does not mean only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

Great. So you proved that it isn’t internally consistent.
Is that what you were going for?

 

[JonNC]

Great. So you proved that it isn’t internally consistent.
Is that what you were going for?

What I’m “going for” is, essentially, it is a distinction that lacks a difference.
Should we be upset that, today, in most communions, the term “Holy Spirit” has replaced “Holy Ghost”? Or, that some no longer say “very God of very God”, but instead say “true God of true God”?

My main problem with the use of “Christian” instead of “Catholic” here in America is because it comes from a misguided desire to appear less Catholic and more protestant.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

What I’m “going for” is, essentially, it is a distinction that lacks a difference.
Should we be upset that, today, in most communions, the term “Holy Spirit” has replaced “Holy Ghost”? Or, that some no longer say “very God of very God”, but instead say “true God of true God”?

Those are all synonyms.
Changing the meaning of the creed is something different.

Why substitute words, unless there’s a reason for it? And, if there’s a reason for it, why hide that reason?

My main problem with the use of “Christian” instead of “Catholic” here in America is because it comes from a misguided desire to appear less Catholic and more protestant.

Jon

This has been the problem all over since the 16th century.

 

[KjetilK]

Those are all synonyms.

Which was the point. For Luther, ‘catholic’ and ‘christian’ were also synonyms.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Which was the point. For Luther, ‘catholic’ and ‘christian’ were also synonyms.

Yes. As were “faith” and “faith alone”.

Words mean things.

 

[KjetilK]

Yes. As were “faith” and “faith alone”.

Words mean things.

And where does the words ‘faith alone’ occur in Confessio Augustana or Luther’s Small Catechism? Luther, when using the word ‘faith,’ meant by it ‘faith working through love.’ With that in mind, what do you say to this quote, made by a Catholic? “Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love.”

 

[KjetilK]

FathersKnowBest, allow me to elaborate on my last post.

The man who uttered the words I quoted were Pope Benedict XVI, in one of his Wednesday audiences, November 19, 2008. Do you agree with him? Or do you disagree with him?

There are only two possibilities here, and both create problems for the argument you presented:

(1) You agree with Pope Benedict, and thus have to agree with Luther’s use of ‘faith alone,’ since Luther, by ‘faith,’ meant ‘faith working through love.’ As you said so yourself, ‘words matter,’ and if the words used are true, it shouldn’t matter if it was Luther or the Pope who said it.

(2) You disagree with Pope Benedict, and thus you have to admit that people are allowed to disagree with people of authority, given or not, which means that I do not have to agree that faith is alone (if faith would mean ‘bare faith,’ fides informis). If you choose the second option, why would it be inconsistent for me to disagree with Luther on this point – a point which is not mentioned a single time in any of the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound – while you would be totally consistent disagreeing with the Pope?

So what is it? Is Luther right all along, or are you simply employing different criteria for yourself than for others?

 

[JonNC]

And where does the words ‘faith alone’ occur in Confessio Augustana or Luther’s Small Catechism? Luther, when using the word ‘faith,’ meant by it ‘faith working through love.’ With that in mind, what do you say to this quote, made by a Catholic? “Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love.”

Hi Father K,
Regarding Pope Benedict’s comment here, one of the things I am convinced of is that he said this not only in full knowledge of Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6, but with it specifically in mind. I have no way to prove it, but Pope Benedict was not known for off-the-cuff comments.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And where does the words ‘faith alone’ occur in Confessio Augustana or Luther’s Small Catechism? Luther, when using the word ‘faith,’ meant by it ‘faith working through love.’ With that in mind, what do you say to this quote, made by a Catholic? “Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love.”

Pope Benedict’s explanation had that qualifier. He didn’t suppose to read Luther’s mind, or to read into Luther’s words. Rather, he used the word “if”.

And you need to understand what Pope Benedict meant by the “not opposed to charity” qualifier.

Here’s an excellent explanation.
Justification Sola Fide - Catholic after All?

 

[KjetilK]

Maybe. Now explain why I have to follow Luther in every thing he does, says, and writes. Where, in the confessions to which I’m bound, is this ‘stripped down’ view of faith found?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Maybe. Now explain why I have to follow Luther in every thing he does, says, and writes. Where, in the confessions to which I’m bound, is this ‘stripped down’ view of faith found?

Never said you did. That’s just something you made up.
However, he IS the founder of your faith. Your religion bears his name, and so you must hold some level of deference for his views.

 

[JonNC]

Never aid you did. That’s just something you made up.
However, he IS the founder of your faith. Your religion bears his name, and so you must hold some level of deference for his views.

Christ is the founder of our faith. We preach Christ crucified. Our religion, Christianity, bears the name of Christ.
We do hold a level of deference for Luther, and Chemnitz, and St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom, and many, many others. But none of them were the Christ. None of them are the founders of the faith. Christ is.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Never said you did. That’s just something you made up.

Then I fail to see the relevance of your point. Why did you toss in that point? What was the relevance? Was it only to get some ‘gotcha moment’ because you didn’t think I would see through your smoke screen?

As I’ve said many times in this discussion, I don’t particularly care what a Reformer wrote as part of his academic career. I might agree or disagree, based on normal academic principles. What I do care about is what is present in the confessions to which I’m bound as a priest in the Church of Norway – the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Cathechism (which must, of course, be read with Luther’s devotion to the Apostles’ Creed in mind). That means that when Luther uses the word ‘Christian,’ he doesn’t mean ‘non-catholic.’

However, he IS the founder of your faith.

In what way?

Your religion bears his name, and so you must hold some level of deference for his views.

My religion ‘bears his name’ because our adversaries gave us that name. As I’ve pointed out, Lutherans mostly call themselves ‘evangelicals’ or ‘evangelical catholics,’ but in English that has become synonymous with low church modern evangelicalism. In Germany, for instance, they hardly ever refer to themselves as ‘Lutherans.’

And I have absolutely no duty to defer to Luther’s views, if he is wrong. I have a duty to defer to my confessions. Now, if you want to engage my views, take these confessions as your starting point, not your preconceived view of what Lutheran ‘must be.’ You keep attacking straw men.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Then I fail to see the relevance of your point. Why did you toss in that point? What was the relevance? Was it only to get some ‘gotcha moment’ because you didn’t think I would see through your smoke screen?

There was no smoke screen.

As I’ve said many times in this discussion, I don’t particularly care what a Reformer wrote as part of his academic career.

And then you write:

(which must, of course, be read with Luther’s devotion to the Apostles’ Creed in mind). That means that when Luther uses the word ‘Christian,’ he doesn’t mean ‘non-catholic.’

So you keep appealing to some teachings of Luther, saying that you don’t care what a Reformer wrote.

It seems you’re confused, and spreading that confusion.

You keep attacking straw men.

Maybe. But they’re straw men that YOU built!

 

[ptisme]

I left for lots or reasons all amounting to I didn’t believe any of the distinctive Catholic dogmas anymore. I was raised non religious but became Christian and Catholic in college. I was drawn to its history and intellectual tradition. There were a few things I couldn’t quite accept but on direction from my spiritual advisor he told me to practice the faith and those things would fall into place. They never did. Ten years later I was trying to practice my faith that was getting more dead and moribund by the day. I was going through the motions and getting more and more resentful of the church. Yet my resentment was making me terrified of my salvation. I laid awake at night terrified that my contrition was not perfect or if I even had it at all. I did confession because it was an obligation. It gave me no comfort. I went to mass because I was obligated and it gave me no comfort. I bought every book Catholic Answers put out and read all their tracts. I went and crossed swords with Protestants in real life and online. I was not trying to convince them, I was trying to convince myself. I realized all my “answers” were pathetic.

I started to hate all the obligations of the church. I hated going to mass. I hated going to confession. I pretended to be on the same page as everyone else. Even though they looked as miserable as me. They all ran out of the church so fast after mass that you would think the building was on fire. My dismal and dead faith offered me no peace, no comfort. It became a source of pain in my life. I was in a state of spiritual torture and agony, I had to make it stop.

All this coupled with some very negative experiences at my local parish, where I was a lector and my wife a Eucharistic minister. I finally told her on the way home from church that I wanted to check out somewhere else. I related all this to a coworker who was feeling very bad about his Reformed baptist church. We both decided to check out a local tiny confessional Lutheran parish in my town. The pastor told me the Lutheran Law Gospel distinction. He offered to baptize my daughter free of charge with no strings attached. Folks actually stayed after church and enjoyed each other’s company. It was like coming up for air. I recently moved and found a new small confessional lutheran parish similar to the first. I was confirmed in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod late last year.

Working with my pastor I have let go of my anger towards my former church. Turns out I may have something called scrupulosity. Something that my hero Luther also may have had. His writings on the issue felt so close to home. I can relate. Now I actually respect my former church more now than a year ago and half ago. I believe that the Catholic Church preaches the word and administers the sacraments, I believe it is a legitimate coequal, co blessed by God, beloved Christian Church home to many Christians. But its simply not for me.

I respect that. While I think much of the discomfort you had was within yourself at the time, I’m glad you’re happy and still in a good relationship with Christ. God bless!

 

[JonNC]

So you keep appealing to some teachings of Luther, saying that you don’t care what a Reformer wrote.

Catholicbridge.com appeals to Luther in order to support the Marion doctrines. It seems that Catholics, too, can appeal to some teachings of the reformer.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.php

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

There was no smoke screen.

Of course there was. You tried to ‘score a point,’ undoubtedly thinking that I didn’t know my own faith. Or thinking that you actually knew it yourself.

So you keep appealing to some teachings of Luther, saying that you don’t care what a Reformer wrote.

It seems you’re confused, and spreading that confusion.

It’s pretty normal to read what one person wrote in light of other things he has written. That doesn’t mean that I endorse everything that person has ever written. I doesn’t even mean that I have to agree with the definition. Luther’s Small Catechism is binding, and must – in its confessional context – be read in line with the other confessions. Therefore it is quite clear that what is meant by ‘christian’ is what is meant by ‘catholic’ in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and Confessio Augustana. You can say that once that became part of the confessional, it should be read confessionally. We can find a parallel to this in the canonical interpretation of Scripture. Once canonised and gathered together, each individual book should be read in light of other books, and in light of the whole.

Maybe. But they’re straw men that YOU built!

How are your misconceptions of what you mistakenly think I believe in any way something I have built?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Catholicbridge.com appeals to Luther in order to support the Marion doctrines. It seems that Catholics, too, can appeal to some teachings of the reformer.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.php

Jon

But the poster here is using Luther to “norm” the confessions.
Biiig difference.