I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[Tomster]

My tiny Lutheran denomination is in full communion with 29 other Lutheran churches around the world. How many different churches is the Catholic Church in union with? Of course all denominations are unified with self. But the CC even being a union of churches cannot claim unity with any other church.

You speak of 29 other Lutheran churches. Do you really expect us to believe that Christ founded 29 other Lutheran churches when His express will is “that all may be one”

You say that you belong to a tiny Lutheran denomination. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

You really should get into the writings of St. Paul.

An excellent reference work for you would be to purchase “The Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ” by Abbe Anger translated from the French by John J. Burke. It will help to see how way off base you are.

 

[Tomster]

We both know that’s a half truth. In fact popes for generations rejected it, even after the Spanish addition. In fact one pope whose name escapes me at the moment had it engraved in gold sans Filioque pledging it would never happen. It wasn’t until Frankish domination of the papacy that it gained major traction. That pope who did the engraving must not have been being led by the HS right?

Your history is really skewed.

 

[Tomster]

A text cannot interpret anything. It takes a living, rational mind to interpret a written text. In the case of the Bible it takes a mind that is familiar with the age, culture, customs, idioms and various modes of expression in place at the time the text was written. It cannot be read as a modern novel or newspaper or journal. And, most importantly, it must be read through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the Church from whence it came.

Yes. It contains nothing erroneous.

Yes. Unless you can show me error. It was added in order to define more clearly what the Church had always believed, but now was being questioned by some.

Unless you can show error in anything the Church proclaims to be true then you have no basis for claiming that it is not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You speak of 29 other Lutheran churches. Do you really expect us to believe that Christ founded 29 other Lutheran churches when His express will is “that all may be one”

Except that your Church recognizes at least 3, if not more, other bodies that it calls Churches which it is not presently one with. So your Church doesn’t obey that command in John 17, either.

You say that you belong to a tiny Lutheran denomination. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

You really should get into the writings of St. Paul.

You should really realize that triumphal statements are not arguments

 

[Tomster]

We both know that’s a half truth. In fact popes for generations rejected it, even after the Spanish addition. In fact one pope whose name escapes me at the moment had it engraved in gold sans Filioque pledging it would never happen. It wasn’t until Frankish domination of the papacy that it gained major traction. That pope who did the engraving must not have been being led by the HS right?

What you might be confused about was that the filioque issue was complicated in the 9th century when some Greek Orthodox leaders were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. It was therefore understandable why Rome favored the Latin formula, which left no doubt about the perfect equality in divine nature of the three Persons of the Trinity.

 

[Per_Crucem]

A text cannot interpret anything. It takes a living, rational mind to interpret a written text. In the case of the Bible it takes a mind that is familiar with the age, culture, customs, idioms and various modes of expression in place at the time the text was written. It cannot be read as a modern novel or newspaper or journal. And, most importantly, it must be read through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the Church from whence it came.

I agree with everything here, Steve. May I ask how you are defining Sacred Tradition and what you believe it contains (not everything it contains, just a general description of what it is)?

 

[Tomster]

Except that your Church recognizes at least 3, if not more, other bodies that it calls Churches which it is not presently one with. So your Church doesn’t obey that command in John 17, either.

You should really realize that triumphal statements are not arguments

Please list the three and if truth is triumphal so be it.

 

[Tomster]

I agree with everything here, Steve. May I ask how you are defining Sacred Tradition and what you believe it contains (not everything it contains, just a general description of what it is)?

So, if you agree with everything in Steve’s post how come a fellow Lutheran, House Harkonnen, doesn’t. He claims his church is in communion with 29 other Lutheran denominations.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Please list the three

Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East.

and if truth is triumphal so be it.

It may be the truth. But it still isn’t an argument.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So, if you agree with everything in Steve’s post how come a fellow Lutheran, House Harkonnen, doesn’t.

It’s probably better to ask him that.

 

[Tomster]

Except that your Church recognizes at least 3, if not more, other bodies that it calls Churches which it is not presently one with. So your Church doesn’t obey that command in John 17, either.

You should really realize that triumphal statements are not arguments

In all reality, the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ is a revealed truth. St. Paul goes to great length to explain it in his epistles. There is only one Church. Twenty-nine different Lutheran denominations are totally against the will of Christ.

 

[Per_Crucem]

In all reality, the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ is a revealed truth. St. Paul goes to great length to explain it in his epistles. There is only one Church. Twenty-nine different Lutheran denominations are totally against the will of Christ.

Lutheran is not a denomination, it is a confession of faith. And 4 (6, if you include smaller groups like the PNCC or Old Catholics), are against the will of Christ, too. So a supposed pedigree of succession and Tradition from the apostles is no safeguard against division, either. Glass houses and all.

 

[Tomster]

Lutheran is not a denomination, it is a confession of faith. And 4 (6, if you include smaller groups like the PNCC or Old Catholics), are against the will of Christ, too. So a supposed pedigree of succession and Tradition from the apostles is no safeguard against division, either. Glass houses and all.

The PNNC and the Old Catholics are definitely against the will of Christ. They fell into schism by deliberately cutting themselves off from the See of Peter the same way Martin Luther did.

 

[Tomster]

Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East.

It may be the truth. But it still isn’t an argument.

The argument was made by St. Paul in his epistles. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. There can be only one Body. It’s a revealed truth.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with everything here, Steve. May I ask how you are defining Sacred Tradition and what you believe it contains (not everything it contains, just a general description of what it is)?

This is what the Church believes concerning Sacred Tradition:

*"77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’”35 Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”36 (861)

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”37 “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”38 (174, 1124, 2651)

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church—and through her in the world—leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”* (CCC par 77-79)

Look at it like this. The Church has always believed, for 2000 years, that it did not have the authority to ordain women. This has been the constant and consistent teaching of the Church. It was, however, never explicitly laid out in a definitive manner until St. Pope John Paul, II defined it as a doctrine of the Church to be held by all the faithful. And he only did this because the Apostolic teaching, always held by the Church, was being questioned by some within our own Church, as well as from outside. The Bible never explicitly states “Women shall not be ordained”, even though it contains plenty of examples that imply this. It is a truth that was held within the Tradition of the Church.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the same. While it can be gleaned from the pages of Scripture, once it is already known and believed, the doctrine has always been part of the Sacred Tradition. I doubt there is anyone who, not knowing otherwise, could pick up the Bible and arrive at the Church’s definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, and its subsequent development.

Hope this helps.

Steve

 

[Godspells]

The PNNC and the Old Catholics are definitely against the will of Christ. They fell into schism by deliberately cutting themselves off from the See of Peter the same way Martin Luther did.

Surely the evils that were going on in the Church at the time of the reformation were against the will of God also were they not?

 

[SteveVH]

Surely the evils that were going on in the Church at the time of the reformation were against the will of God also were they not?

Absolutely, and the Church readily admits this. It was also true during the time of St. Francis, though with an entirely different result.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is what the Church believes concerning Sacred Tradition:

*"77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’”35 Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”36 (861)

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”37 “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”38 (174, 1124, 2651)

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church—and through her in the world—leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”* (CCC par 77-79)

The only problem with this, at least from my perspective, is how the average layman, investigating church history, determines who possesses the truth of Sacred Tradition. Nor does it give an objective criterion to determine what is apostolic and what is innovation.

ISTM, it isn’t much different than the Protestant who relies on how he sees Scripture to determine which of the Protestant denominations to choose from based on his reading of Scripture.

 

[SteveVH]

The only problem with this, at least from my perspective, is how the average layman, investigating church history, determines who possesses the truth of Sacred Tradition. Nor does it give an objective criterion to determine what is apostolic and what is innovation.

That is why we are told to take it to the Church, for the simple reason that the average layman, on his own, does not possess the sacred deposit of faith given to the Church by the Apostles. The Tradition lies in the teachings, liturgies and very life of the Church which has been preserved, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, through every generation from the beginning.

From Scripture, what can be determined is that Christ founded and built a Church to which he gave the unprecedented authority to bind and loose together with the protection of the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into all truth. That is legislative authority. What the Church proclaims and defines, whether orally or in writing, is bound in heaven as well as on earth.

ISTM, it isn’t much different than the Protestant who relies on how he sees Scripture to determine which of the Protestant denominations to choose from based on his reading of Scripture.

And all of this is based upon nothing more than the average layman’s opinion without any authority to define anything. This is quite different than a Church, to which was given great authority and to which we were instructed to bring any dispute concerning how we should act and what we should believe.

It is the rejection of the authority of this Church, defined in both Tradition and Scripture, that is at the root of the issues you present.

 

[Per_Crucem]

That is why we are told to take it to the Church, for the simple reason that the average layman, on his own, does not possess the sacred deposit of faith given to the Church by the Apostles. The Tradition lies in the teachings, liturgies and very life of the Church which has been preserved, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, through every generation from the beginning.

From Scripture, what can be determined is that Christ founded and built a Church to which he gave the unprecedented authority to bind and loose together with the protection of the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into all truth. That is legislative authority. What the Church proclaims and defines, whether orally or in writing, is bound in heaven as well as on earth.

And all of this is based upon nothing more than the average layman’s opinion without any authority to define anything. This is quite different than a Church, to which was given great authority and to which we were instructed to bring any dispute concerning how we should act and what we should believe.

It is the rejection of the authority of this Church, defined in both Tradition and Scripture, that is at the root of the issues you present.

And how does the layman know which Church to take it to?