This is very Catholic
This is categorically false.
Sorry, but you are getting more and more vague and muddy as we discuss this.I used careful language like “perhaps” to avoid making a premature claim. I did not know Luther’s full view of the relationship between Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Now, I do. I say that it fits my current view quite well, so I do not have anything differing from such a view as we speak.
Hi!
Again, in order to claim self-rule (theological control) one must eradicate the Church (ignore her to oblivion): if the Church is not there then one can manifest any theology as the one and true path to God.
You are correct! I do not gauge my language; coincidentally, I am ignorant of many things (including the specifics of those bodies that have splintered from the Church or have arisen in contrast to her); yet, it remains… only by ignoring the existence of the Church (Foundation and Fullness of Faith) can a secondary or tertiary (etc.) body emerge. The schism of the East-West is exacting proof of this.
Well, I meant in the sense that Catholics or maybe Eastern Orthodox think of the One True Church as a sacramental institution, not as the communion of saints (hence “literal” and “earthly”). So what I’m referring to is how you might think of the Church.
conciliaranglican.com/2011/10/28/ask-an-anglican-choosing-the-one-true-church/
Shh… don’t tell anyone…
I think that the idea of the universal priesthood was intended to prevent any future form of ultra-legalism, maybe even to prevent sacerdotalism (where a priest offers a sacrifice to God for the sins of his congregation, as they are powerless in their sin: and then some elaboration). St. Thomas Aquinas rejected that form of this.
As a category, yes. In fact, scholars tend to group Protestantism as Western Christianity not within Catholicism or Restorationism (which has a definition distinct from the Church but including it). So it is kind of like a default category, but there are similarities within theology, primarily the solas. No, all are not accepted universally, as I’ve said.
I will try to be more clear. My view on Scripture parallels Luther’s view, which I summed up in post #52 (quoted), but my sources are all on post #37:
However, Scripture is part of Tradition (I will define it as anything coming from the apostles) and yet the highest part of it (one can say “above it,” but that may be overly simplistic). Now this works for my purposes, but I’m aware that this is not a view to be imposed or even argued for because it is not universal (of course).
Hi there.
Luther’s view, as you describe it, is the Catholic view.
I’ve been asked this question before, and I do find it to be an entertaining one for myself to figure out. Well, I will admit that my views are somewhat close to Catholic views, and I take to Lutheran views on the sacraments and justification especially (I don’t yet see anything I disagree with if I’m honest). I do not go to a Lutheran church, nor was I raised as such, but it may be where I stand.
Hi!Hi there.
But we must also be wary of what some bodies have done with the Great Apostasy doctrine (and if that were true, it would shame every Christian body before the 1800s or so because we didn’t “prevent” it!). They do not ignore the Church, they just claimed that Church authority was somehow lost.
It also helps to establish the authority of one’s own church however they can, which is why it is Restore-ationism. Interestingly enough, the Jehovah’s Witnesses solely use the Bible while ignoring even the most basic or essential parts of Tradition. I asked a Jehovah’s Witness handing out pamphlets where the Watch Tower gets its authority, and she said “the Bible.”
So I think there are quite a few of these groups and, as you agreed (I believe), you have to be case-specific!
Wait, but Catholics don’t believe that the Church is more powerful than God, right? It says “more powerful than God,” but God would be on their side as Christians…
Thanks for sharing your journey.I’ve been asked this question before, and I do find it to be an entertaining one for myself to figure out. Well, I will admit that my views are somewhat close to Catholic views, and I take to Lutheran views on the sacraments and justification especially (I don’t yet see anything I disagree with if I’m honest). I do not go to a Lutheran church, nor was I raised as such, but it may be where I stand.
When I first started to take an interest in theology (I was around 9 or 10), I was very ignorant of it coming from all sides. However, I developed an Arian and semi-Pelagian downright heretical theology saying “the councils got it wrong.” I’m not justifying it, but I only rejected it within the past year or so (I’m relatively young, so perhaps it was permissible?). I do regret it now, and if I could go back in time, I’d convince myself otherwise. But I can’t do that!
I know you didn’t ask to hear about my entire theological journey, but a considerable reason I’m not a Catholic because I was never raised as a Catholic. I was baptised Catholic and my surviving grandparents are Catholic (my paternal grandmother especially), but my parents eventually left because of my mother’s differing views (though it was for a moral reason in her eyes, she believed that if she stayed, she’d be a liar and a hypocrite).
Now, I go to a Protestant (United Methodist in particular, but I don’t identify) church with my family. When I’m older, I do plan to view the various ancient churches at least for a good look, and I’m aware of the theological standards to go by in some of these. I’ve only been to one Catholic Mass in my life, and this was years ago when I was seven or eight, and I didn’t understand a thing.
However, I do believe in what I profess, though I’m curious. God is patient.
I think you misread me–I am stating that the “apostasy” claims that the Catholic Church somehow usurped the “real” church that went underground for about 1500 years and I am expanding that understanding to mitigate that for the Catholic Church to be able to render the “real” church ineffective for 1500 years she must have more power than God Who assured that His Church would not be defeated even by Satan and that He would send the other Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) to bring her to the fullness of Truth–and that He Himself would Remain with her till the end of times (ages). So for the Catholic Church to be fake and take over she must be more powerful than God–a reasonable mind must conclude that from the claims of the “apostasy” theologists.Wait, but Catholics don’t believe that the Church is more powerful than God, right? It says “more powerful than God,” but God would be on their side as Christians…
As for “creating a religion,” I didn’t really create one but simply found Lutheran ideas well. The quote is spot-on, but if I were to create my own religion, I don’t think I can do better than what God has given us (Christ Himself at the least!)
Yes, I read that and it makes sense. I don’t think that theology proper differs anywhere within Trinitarian Christianity (except the Eastern Orthodox have some different concepts which we Western Christians do not, like the essence-energies distinction).
Fair enough.
I never said Christ’s church is the Lutheran Church in the same sense as Catholics to the Catholic Church, etc (which is not relevant to the question very much, I don’t think). The synergism vs. monergism difference was what I thought of first for me. I first started at a vague form of Arminianism, but I realized the superior implications of a “Lite” (not Calvinistic) monergism.
Not sure of your point?
I think we’re doing exactly what the raison d’etre for a forum is.Again, I’d never intend to turn this into a debate, simply some questions and answers.
Well, I do not “belong to” any Lutheran group in particular, of course. Not as of now, though I’m willing to at least see the theology. Logical, sure. But faith isn’t always logical.
Okay, yes, so long as we remain civil, and we have been; there’s no reason to think otherwise.I think we’re doing exactly what the raison d’etre for a forum is.
How about if we start with this: do you believe Jesus established a Church?
Yes, but I feel this turning into the same-old, same-old already. The point of the thread has been surpassed, detailing (even through our conversations) how we “know” or have faith in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. Scripture, Tradition, testimony, you name it.
Well, let’s just use our reasoning ability here.Yes, but I feel this turning into the same-old, same-old already. The point of the thread has been surpassed, detailing (even through our conversations) how we “know” or have faith in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. Scripture, Tradition, testimony, you name it.