How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[benedictus2]

'zactly.

I gave this example in a different thread. While it is not a perfect analogy, I think it makes the point of how doctrine develops but does not “change”.

*Let’s say that I am working in an Emergency Unit and someone brings in a guy who was attacked by a wild animal. That’s all the medical providers need to know at this point. Later, as he recovers he’s able to tell us that the wild animal was a big black female bear. Later on we find that the mama bear had rabies and now the patient needs treatment for that.

See how the story has been refined, but not changed? The initial story: “a guy was attacked by a wild animal” is still true. But now we have more refined info.

Change would be: the guy was actually in a drunken knife fight at a bar.*

Good explanation

 

[benedictus2]

In either case, benedictus, whether you believe He imputes His righteousness in you, making His righteousness what God sees in you, or makes you righteous, it is His righteousness that transforms you. It is not something you or I do. It is by grace.

Aaah but it does make a difference, because it goes to the heart of this thread. Which interpretation is correct? The reason why it matters is because truth matters. Which of these two positions is true.

Christ say I am the Truth. When we find truth, we find Christ.

Furthermore this understanding of imputation has implications on our understanding of salvation, eccelsiology, the sacraments and what must heaven be like. As Webby pointed out, is God really just a collector of dung heaps?

Do you really believe that we get to heaven still the putrid sinners that we are, just clothed in the nice smelling righteousness of Christ.

Matthew 5:48 Be perfect as thy Father in heaven is perfect.

If perfection is asked of us, then that does not jive with the dung heap that is covered with snow.

Furthermore, think about it. Is God fooling Himself, seeing righteousness when it is not there?

Isn’t it said that nothing unclean will enter heaven.

My honesty regarding imputed or infused righteousness is my uncertainty regarding it. So, as I said, I know that the righteousness God sees in me is Christ’s righteousness, not my own, whether imputed or infused.
For “None is righteous, no, not one.”

Is that imputed, or infused? Either way, it is His righteousness within me.

Well it seems not. Imputation means that the righteousness is NOT within you. You would have been merely declared righteous, there would not have been any righteousness in you at all.

So you think that when you get to heaven you remain the same miserable sinner except that God looks at you and sees His Son instead?

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that when you get to heaven, you will still be a heap of dung just white on the outside.

What I am asking you to do is ponder the two positions. Ruminate on it and ask yourself whether you can hold that imputation is the correct way of understanding the Bible when it comes to justification.

What is the more rational and reasonable option based on the entirety of Scripture?

 

[benedictus2]

I believe that Purgatory is referenced in the NT, too, not just in Maccabbees.

[bibledrb]1 Cor 3:14-15[/bibledrb]

Here’s a great Catholic Answers tract on where Purgatory is found in the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

Good point again. Thanks PR

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6769605]Aaah but it does make a difference, because it goes to the heart of this thread. Which interpretation is correct? The reason why it matters is because truth matters. Which of these two positions is true.

Christ say I am the Truth. When we find truth, we find Christ.

It is more than two positions. Which interpretation goes beyond just you and me. For example, the Orthodox have a different concept of Original Sin. SO, the who is correct goes beyond just us in the west, and it goes beyond Scripture and Tradition, vs sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

A citation, please, where he states this as his motive.

I can’t give a book but it was on a talk given by I think by Kenneth Craycraft who converted into Catholicism and whose specialty was the canon of Scripture.

Why is it that Mac 2 doesn’t convince the Orthodox of the Catholic notion of Purgatory?

The Orthodox believes in Purgatory but they have not defined it. The orthodox are not into defining doctrines, that is why even though they believe that the bread and wine are indeed the Body and Blood of Christ after consecreation, they have not made any attempts to formalize this doctrine quite in the way we do.

But the Orthodox does believe in purgatory and just calls it a part in the the process of theosis.

Luther states his feeling clearly, just as many Catholics did over the centuries, regarding the Deuterocanon. Finally, Luther translated the entire D-C, plus the Prayer of Manasses.
Why would he even take the effort to translate Mac 2, much less the rest of the D-C’s, and include them in his translation into German if it was his intent to “get rid” of Mac 2?

That I don’t know but he did determine by himself that it was not canonical and hence made it an appendix.

He also said this about James: *]“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle… *

Then why did he call it the epistle of straw. Perhaps Luther was unstable and could not make up his mind?

His was not a denigration worse than many others. Example: Cardinal Cajetan
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose."

I have answered this in my previous posts on this topic to Semper Reformada on the canon of the Bible
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=456675&page=26

That Cajetan had an issue with the DCs has no bearing on this because the Church has always accepted the DCs as part of the canon.

To only target Luther about this widely held belief regarding the D-C’s is just historically one-sided.

**It was not a widely held belief. The widely held belief was they were canonical.
** What Cajetan did was subordinate everyone else to St Jerome (Councils and Popes alike) which is very much what protestants do when they go by Luther’s canon within canon - they subordinate every one - Church Fathers and Councils included to Luther.

So, working together in dialogue, perhaps Lutherans and Catholics today can overcome the mistakes of the Church and of Luther.

Jon

We most certainly can but it won’t be achieved through compromise because we can’t compromise on truth. On certain matters the doctrinal accretions that arose during the reformation will have to give to the truths that the Church has held over 2000 years.

That will be big thing for a lot of Lutherans that is why any union will be made one soul at a time.

 

[benedictus2]

I thought you were talking about upon entry to heaven. I wouldn’t describe the saints in the Church triumphant in the way you have.

How would you describe them?

Are we not, here on earth, sinners? Even those of us who have the Holy Spirit in us by justification?

On earth yes. But when we are already in heaven and thus have been declared just because we have been sanctified then no. We are no longer sinners. As it says in revelations we are white as snow because we have been washed by the Blood of the Lamb.

We are not “the same” sinner. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” The very fact that you and I both believe in and practice confession/Holy absolution is evidence that the regenerate are still sinners.

Oh definitely we delude our selves if we think we are sinless. But that is only here on earth. Heaven is an entirely different proposition. So long as we remain sinners, then heaven will remain the distant destination to which we make our journey. When we have been sanctified by grace then heaven becomes home, we have arrived. We are no longer sinners.

 

[benedictus2]

It is more than two positions. Which interpretation goes beyond just you and me. For example, the Orthodox have a different concept of Original Sin. SO, the who is correct goes beyond just us in the west, and it goes beyond Scripture and Tradition, vs sola scriptura.

Jon

I am not very familiar with the Orthodox concept of orginal sin. I think they refer to it as ancestral sin (but the minutae of the belief I don’t really know). I think this is once again a non-definition of a doctrine that we both believe in.

Just like purgatory and the Eucharist, I think the belief here may turn out to be more similar than you think. But I will have to read up on that and get back to you.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6769643]I can’t give a book but it was on a talk given by I think by Kenneth Craycraft who converted into Catholicism and whose specialty was the canon of Scripture.
Then you would agree, Cory, that this is merely speculation.

The Orthodox believes in Purgatory but they have not defined it. The orthodox are not into defining doctrines, that is why even though they believe that the bread and wine are indeed the Body and Blood of Christ after consecreation, they have not made any attempts to formalize this doctrine quite in the way we do.
But the Orthodox does believe in purgatory and just calls it a part in the the process of theosis.

And I believe that, at the moment of death, we go through a cleansing, a purifying, necessary for entry into His presence in Heaven. Is that a sufficient belief regarding Purgatory.

That I don’t know but he did determine by himself that it was not canonical and hence made it an appendix.

Before Trent, any Catholic could determine his belief regarding the canonoicity of the D-C’s. How the books were placed in the Bible was not a matter of dogma. It seems reasonable based on the historic dispute regarding them that he may have ordered the books as he did. In addition, as his translation came after his excommunication, he wasn’t answerable to Rome about the order of the books.

He also said this about James: *]“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle… *

Then why did he call it the epistle of straw. Perhaps Luther was unstable and could not make up his mind?
So, Cory, if I change my mind and convert, does that make me unstable?
The entire quote about a book of straw is rarely posted here. Here it is:
*In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, **compared to ***these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”
It was a comparison, not a finite statement. He was comparing it to these other epistles.
It is also true that this preface only appeared in the, I think, first publication of the NT. Later versions did not contain it. Luther questioned its authorship, again not an unusual event in history.

That Cajetan had an issue with the DCs has no bearing on this because the Church has always accepted the DCs as part of the canon.

It does is this sense; if the good Cardinal was permitted by the Church to write in this way about the D-C’s, then Luther must also be given the same allowance.

It was not a widely held belief. The widely held belief was they were canonical.
What Cajetan did was subordinate everyone else to St Jerome (Councils and Popes alike) which is very much what protestants do when they go by Luther’s canon within canon - they subordinate every one - Church Fathers and Councils included to Luther.

I would say that they don’t subordinate themselves to Trent. And I think you would find that many would cringe at the charge they subordinate anything to Luther.

We most certainly can but it won’t be achieved through compromise because we can’t compromise on truth. On certain matters the doctrinal accretions that arose during the reformation will have to give to the truths that the Church has held over 2000 years.

Again, you will never hear me use the word compromise.

That will be big thing for a lot of Lutherans that is why any union will be made one soul at a time.

From what I have read, John Paul II seemed to have more interest in corporate reconciliation.

Jon

 

[krbray]

It is more than two positions. Which interpretation goes beyond just you and me. For example, the Orthodox have a different concept of Original Sin. SO, the who is correct goes beyond just us in the west, and it goes beyond Scripture and Tradition, vs sola scriptura.

Jon

But that doesn’t answer benedictus2’s question of which interpretation is correct. Two positions, three or four, who makes the authoritative determination of which one is correct?

 

[krbray]

And I believe that, at the moment of death, we go through a cleansing, a purifying, necessary for entry into His presence in Heaven. Is that a sufficient belief regarding Purgatory.

It seems clear to me that it is. Paragraphs 1030 and 1031 from the CCC:

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

 

[krbray]

Before Trent, any Catholic could determine his belief regarding the canonoicity of the D-C’s.

OTOH, before or after Trent, neither was there any Catholic who had the authority to overrule the canon of the Bible, as approved by several councils, and remove the D-C’s from use.

The entire quote about a book of straw is rarely posted here. Here it is:
*In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, **compared to ***these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”
It was a comparison, not a finite statement. He was comparing it to these other epistles.
It is also true that this preface only appeared in the, I think, first publication of the NT. Later versions did not contain it. Luther questioned its authorship, again not an unusual event in history.

Luther lists a fraction of the writings in the Bible and declares them as “the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary”, effectively discounting several books as being unneccessary for us to know Christ. However, of this remainder, he chooses to compare, as an “epistle of straw”, the one book that unequivocally refuted his doctrine of salvation by “faith alone”. I can see why the full quote is rarely posted; it changes nothing. It is what it is: Luther called it an epistle of straw.

 

[Deacon_JAR]

How would you describe them?

On earth yes. But when we are already in heaven and thus have been declared just because we have been sanctified then no. We are no longer sinners. As it says in revelations we are white as snow because we have been washed by the Blood of the Lamb.

Oh definitely we delude our selves if we think we are sinless. But that is only here on earth. Heaven is an entirely different proposition. So long as we remain sinners, then heaven will remain the distant destination to which we make our journey. When we have been sanctified by grace then heaven becomes home, we have arrived. We are no longer sinners.

Cory, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. My friend, I agree with you 110%. I am going to add some (name removed by moderator)uts to this topic but not tonight, may be tomorrow.

 

[benedictus2]

Then you would agree, Cory, that this is merely speculation.

Not entirely. Kenneth Craycraft is a theologian who specialized in the canon. I don’t think he would have said what he did had he no solid grounds to base his claims upon.

And I believe that, at the moment of death, we go through a cleansing, a purifying, necessary for entry into His presence in Heaven. Is that a sufficient belief regarding Purgatory.

Yes, that is purgatory all right. Which brings me back to your belief that righteousness is imputed. Why would there be a need for purgation if righteousness is already imputed; if there is no need to be made righteous but merely to be declared righteous?

Before Trent, any Catholic could determine his belief regarding the canonoicity of the D-C’s.

That is not quite correct. Some had personal opinions (in the same way that now, some who consider themselves Catholics cherry pick on which doctrines they will believe). But to say that one’s choices of doctrine should be what should apply to the rest of the Church is to decree one’s self to be the magisterium.

How the books were placed in the Bible was not a matter of dogma. It seems reasonable based on the historic dispute regarding them that he may have ordered the books as he did. In addition, as his translation came after his excommunication, he wasn’t answerable to Rome about the order of the books.

Well that is true. After his excommunication he was no longer answerable to Rome how to arrange his Bible. But I think that was his intent even prior to his excommunication.

So, Cory, if I change my mind and convert, does that make me unstable?

My comment about his instability was also based on what I have read about him and what he himself wrote. He came across as a rather volatile and arrogant man.

The entire quote about a book of straw is rarely posted here. Here it is:
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw,

compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” It was a comparison, not a finite statement. He was comparing it to these other epistles.
It is also true that this preface only appeared in the, I think, first publication of the NT. Later versions did not contain it. Luther questioned its authorship, again not an unusual event in history.
The part I highlighted and underlined shows his intent to diminish its importance. The question here is why? The answer is because he had a preset theology and he was forcing the scripture to support his theology rather than allowing it to speak for itself.

He needed to diminish the stature of James’s epistle because of it’s emphasis on the importance of works.

It does is this sense; if the good Cardinal was permitted by the Church to write in this way about the D-C’s, then Luther must also be given the same allowance.

Well no. I doubt that permission was asked whether to write in this way or not. Cajetan simply wrote what he thought. You also need to consider that Luther did this to denigrate the DCs and thus bolster his case against the doctrine of purgatory.

I would say that they don’t subordinate themselves to Trent.

Why not? Do they have more authority than Trent? Where did their authority derive from? Remember that Trent was only confirming what the other councils have affirmed before.

And I think you would find that many would cringe at the charge they subordinate anything to Luther.

Whether they admit to subordinating themselves to Luther or not, the reality remains that they do when they accept Luther’s canon within a canon.

Again, you will never hear me use the word compromise.

Above, you said something along the lines of “the middle ground being compromise and both sides would not compromise”. I thought you meant there that, to move forward, there must be compromise and that the reason we seem to be at a stalemate is because no one would compromise.

From what I have read, John Paul II seemed to have more interest in corporate reconciliation.

Yes, that would be wonderful if it were to happen. And of course the Holy Spirit have done great miracles and nothing is impossible to God. But based on the way it is now, I suppose I am being a little realistic and see the (what I think ) high degree of improbability of that happening. For even if the Lutheran leadership were to somehow finally say yes, we believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I doubt the Lutheran faithful would follow en masse.

 

[JonNC]

But that doesn’t answer benedictus2’s question of which interpretation is correct. Two positions, three or four, who makes the authoritative determination of which one is correct?

I guess, neighbor (I live in WNC also), if we all agreed on that, there would be no division or schism. It is my belief, at least at this point in my life, that Augsburg rightly reflects scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

OTOH, before or after Trent, neither was there any Catholic who had the authority to overrule the canon of the Bible, as approved by several councils, and remove the D-C’s from use.

Luther lists a fraction of the writings in the Bible and declares them as “the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary”, effectively discounting several books as being unneccessary for us to know Christ. However, of this remainder, he chooses to compare, as an “epistle of straw”, the one book that unequivocally refuted his doctrine of salvation by “faith alone”. I can see why the full quote is rarely posted; it changes nothing. It is what it is: Luther called it an epistle of straw.

I can’t speak for other traditions, what they choose to do or not do. Lutherans generally view the D-C’s as second to the canon, though, as I mentioned, the Book of Concord does not specifically close the canon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

OTOH, before or after Trent, neither was there any Catholic who had the authority to overrule the canon of the Bible, as approved by several councils, and remove the D-C’s from use.

Luther lists a fraction of the writings in the Bible and declares them as “the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary”, effectively discounting several books as being unneccessary for us to know Christ. However, of this remainder, he chooses to compare, as an “epistle of straw”, the one book that unequivocally refuted his doctrine of salvation by “faith alone”. I can see why the full quote is rarely posted; it changes nothing. It is what it is: Luther called it an epistle of straw.

Two other comments.

James Akin doesn’t seem to think, in light of the jddj, that the Lutheran concept of faith alone is even under the condemnations of Trent. Of course, Lutherans never have believed that James refutes it.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

Luther also said this about James:
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;
Here he states his real problem with the book, he does not consider it the writing of an Apostle. Also, regarding the role of works,
“In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

He is stating an opinion, which seems by some to be allowed for others, but not for Luther.
Is he critical in a theological and scholarly sense? Yes. Was this allowed? Yes.

It is also important to point out that he preached from James long after the Reformation.
And finally, regardless of Luther’s view (he was simply a man with his opinion), it is regarded by Lutherans as canon, and always has been.
Jon

 

[benedictus2]

And yet there is evidence that our communions have done this. In the jddj, no one gave up their viewpoint, but, as far as it goes, agreed that our viewpoints are, in fact the same, and no longer are cause for mutual condemnations on those points.

And sadly, that is why it has not gone any farther than that. We go together along this road and realize that hey, we have this particular highway in common in our effort to get to our destination. So we’re buddy buddies sharing our experiences as we travel along. But then we get to the fork on the road. Lutherans insist that we need to take the left, we say no it has to be the right. We are both convinced that we hold the truth.
This fork on the road is the reality. To travel together we either both go left or both go right. And that means that one side has to say the other is right and therefore must abandon his own belief for the truth of the other. And this will not happen unless one is convinced that the other does hold the truth.

I will leave that to our communion’s dialogue participants and the HOly Spirit to decide that.

Yes it is good to let the theologians fine tune and argue what needs to be fine tuned and argued over.
But say, just thinking for yourself which I am sure you must do, you must realize that that is the reality. Either we abandon our doctrines that do not line up with yours or you eschew those that don’t line up with ours. There just is no compromise.

But I will mention that earlier you said:
“Doctrine develops but new doctrines will not contradict the old ones. It will be a development, a shedding of more light, greater illumination.”
Cory, I don’t mean this question in any way but as a question: do you think this belief cannot be applied to our communions’ mutual dialogue, but only to statements by the Pope and Magisterium outside of dialogue?

I don’t know how it can. The reformation doctrines are novelties that cannot be traced back to the doctrines prior to its emergence. They are not developments but rather corruptions of existing sound doctrines.

As I have illustrated above there comes a time when we must face that there are differences that cannot be solved by dialogue.
Let me put it another way. In the issue between non-Christian theists and Christians, there certainly are points of congruence with regards doctrine. But sooner or later that aspect of the doctrine that divides us will rear its head and we cannot paper this one over.
Unless the leadership is so brilliant at selling their new found understanding, it will still all come down to each and every individual soul as he/she grapples over having to let go a belief that has been held for – in some cases – almost a lifetime. And yet it has been done by so many who have really opened their hearts to the truth.
Every single conversion story that I have heard has an agonizing part. As Scott Hahn said, this fairytale like joy at encountering Truth suddenly turns into a horror story. It must be frightening to suddenly find that what you have believed to be true for so long turns out to be a lie. And yet, for the soul who has been convicted of that truth, there is no other way but to follow it.

Happy mediums are not convergences, but compromises. Neither of us is willing to compromise.

And neither should we. This is a battle for the truth, for souls. We need to hang on to the truth or else we hand over the scepter of victory to the father of lies.

PS I am taking a CAF break so will respond to any of your posts in a week’s time.

Peace!

Cory

 

[benedictus2]

Cory, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. My friend, I agree with you 110%. I am going to add some (name removed by moderator)uts to this topic but not tonight, may be tomorrow.

Hi DeaconJAR, look forward to your post. Will check it when i get back in a week’s time.

Peace and Joy of Christ,

Cory

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6773047]Not entirely. Kenneth Craycraft is a theologian who specialized in the canon. I don’t think he would have said what he did had he no solid grounds to base his claims upon.

Without a source stating that it was Luther’s intent, it seems speculation, no disrespect intended to Craycraft.

Yes, that is purgatory all right. Which brings me back to your belief that righteousness is imputed. Why would there be a need for purgation if righteousness is already imputed; if there is no need to be made righteous but merely to be declared righteous?

All the greater question if righteousness is infused. If it is infused, and you are righteous, why Purgatory, or Theosis?

Well that is true. After his excommunication he was no longer answerable to Rome how to arrange his Bible. But I think that was his intent even prior to his excommunication.

I don’t know that to be true, or not true. I do know this, had he been as opposed to the D-C’s as some claim, he would have never spent the time and effort to translate and include them, appendix or not.

My comment about his instability was also based on what I have read about him and what he himself wrote. He came across as a rather volatile and arrogant man.

I think there is a tendency to, on the Catholic side, make nmore of this than there is. And on the Lutheran side, to wash the facts in the same degree. The truth of the man is probably somewhere in the middle. He was a sinner, with faults like you and me, needing God’s grace.

The part I highlighted and underlined shows his intent to diminish its importance. The question here is why? The answer is because he had a preset theology and he was forcing the scripture to support his theology rather than allowing it to speak for itself.

He needed to diminish the stature of James’s epistle because of it’s emphasis on the importance of works.

I just responded to this to krbray.

Well no. I doubt that permission was asked whether to write in this way or not. Cajetan simply wrote what he thought. You also need to consider that Luther did this to denigrate the DCs and thus bolster his case against the doctrine of purgatory.

Again, speculation on motives.

Why not? Do they have more authority than Trent? Where did their authority derive from? Remember that Trent was only confirming what the other councils have affirmed before.

Also remember that Trent only applies to the CC. It is a different subject to discuuss whether or not Trent was a truly ecumenical council.

Whether they admit to subordinating themselves to Luther or not, the reality remains that they do when they accept Luther’s canon within a canon.

Again, I can’t speak for what other traditions do or say. I can only say that, while in practice we view the canon in such a way that the D-C’s are not to the level of the others, it also is not doctrinal as it is not declared so in the confessions.

Above, you said something along the lines of “the middle ground being compromise and both sides would not compromise”. I thought you meant there that, to move forward, there must be compromise and that the reason we seem to be at a stalemate is because no one would compromise.

I don’t think so. Specifically, I have said all along that compromise of doctrine will not work. That would be a false unity that cannot long survive. What I have said is that it will take the Holy Spirit guiding our words and understanding to the one truth together. And I’ve given the example of the jddj. It is not a compromise, but instead a convergence of understanding of the truth, as far as the document goes.

Yes, that would be wonderful if it were to happen. And of course the Holy Spirit have done great miracles and nothing is impossible to God. But based on the way it is now, I suppose I am being a little realistic and see the (what I think ) high degree of improbability of that happening.

Fifty years ago, prior to Vatican II, and before the start-up of high level dialogue between our two communions, the documents that have resulted since would never have been possible. I’m not being Polly Anna about this, but in my lifetime has been the greatest movement between us since the Reformation.

For even if the Lutheran leadership were to somehow finally say yes, we believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I doubt the Lutheran faithful would follow en masse.

Even if Rome and Lutherans came to reconciliation, I am certain that some, maybe a significant number, of Lutherans would not be moved by it. I asm equally certain that there are Catholics who would condemn the Vatican for allowing it to happen. We both have our hard-headed wings.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Well, in all of these responses, there were only two Protestants who even made an attempt to address the questions I raised.

The lack of interest in answering your questions may have stemmed from a perception that you were not asking them in good faith, and that you would not engage in serious dialogue with serious responses. Any Protestants who suspected this were clearly justified by your response to JonNC:

AlI I can say is that JonNC seems unfamiliar with sola scriptura, or actually, is pretending to be unfamiliar with it. Rather scandalous considering his own spiritual father (Luther) has much to say about it,ahem.

If a Protestant treated a Catholic that way, you would see immediately how grave a sin against justice and charity was being committed.

Jon can be expected to know more about what he believes than you do.

Edwin