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

[pablope]

Research, in part, depends on my own personal interpretation. Since many research and become EO, or RC, or Lutheran, or something else. In part, it’s just going to boil down to my own personal opinion.

Luther got many things wrong. That’s why no Lutheran follows Luther.

From what I have observed…generally this is stated when it is convenient.

Do you think Luther was correct on SS?

 

[pablope]

How would I know which church the sacred tradition has been preserved in without, in part! relying on my own personal interpretation?

St. Optatus, 1500 years prior, apparently knew the answer:

St. Optatus writes to Parmenian:

But you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome. It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s Shrine…. Behold, in Rome are the Shrines of the two Apostles *. Will you tell me whether he * has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where as is certain are these Shrines of the Saints.

And:

ou cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

o, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL — unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other.30**

 

[House_Harkonnen]

From what I have observed…generally this is stated when it is convenient.

Do you think Luther was correct on SS?

From what I have observed…generally this is stated when it is convenient.

Not at all. Every Lutheran I know completely admits that Luther was wrong about some things. Convenience has nothing to do with it.

Do you think Luther was correct on SS?

What did he say about SS?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

St. Optatus, 1500 years prior, apparently knew the answer:

St. Optatus writes to Parmenian:

But you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome. It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s Shrine…. Behold, in Rome are the Shrines of the two Apostles *. Will you tell me whether he * has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where as is certain are these Shrines of the Saints.

And:

ou cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

o, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL — unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other.30**

1500 years ago I would probably have sought unity with Rome too.

This was before Rome started teaching error. So it was right to seek unity with Rome.

 

[Memaw]

1500 years ago I would probably have sought unity with Rome too.

This was before Rome started teaching error. So it was right to seek unity with Rome.

You think ??? Guess who’s really teaching error !!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You think ??? Guess who’s really teaching error !!! God Bless, Memaw

I don’t understand the question.

 

[SteveVH]

1500 years ago I would probably have sought unity with Rome too.

This was before Rome started teaching error. So it was right to seek unity with Rome.

So, the Catholic Church wasn’t teaching error 1500 year ago. When, exactly, did it start teaching error? This is a new one for me. I have always heard that Constantine was responsible for bringing pagan error into the Church but he died in 337 A.D. so it couldn’t have been him. Apparently you have some evidence that hasn’t been presented yet. Why don’t you enlighten us?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So, the Catholic Church wasn’t teaching error 1500 year ago. When, exactly, did it start teaching error? This is a new one for me. I have always heard that Constantine was responsible for bringing pagan error into the Church but he died in 337 A.D. so it couldn’t have been him. Apparently you have some evidence that hasn’t been presented yet. Why don’t you enlighten us?

No. The Constantine argument is favored mostly by empty headed conspiracy nuts. No he just called a council to unit the church and the empire. He didn’t add anything to the church. And he didn’t really care much beyond unity since he remained a pagan even afterward. No, there were seeds of errant teaching going on even then, but the Roman church was still orthodox up to the period of Byzantine domination from about 500 to 750 where the papacy was beholden to the emperor and patriarch. Certainly after that period when the papacy was under Frankish domination did serious error began to be vigorously taught, as Photios demonstrated.

 

[Sunflake9]

So now we have gone from “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” to it went off the rails right after it started? Give us all a break!!! Your just trolling for a argument. There is nothing here left to discuss. Enjoy fantasy land.

 

[guanophore]

How would I know which church the sacred tradition has been preserved in without, in part! relying on my own personal interpretation?

I just read a post from a Lutheran saying that the Augsburg confession and the small catechism are the “official interpretation” of sacred Scritpure and Sacred Tradition for Lutherans. Are you saying that these sources are not sufficient for Lutherans?

I disagree. For ages the popes actively went back and forth about the Filioque. They must have been massively confused about whether or not this addition was really part of Sacred Tradition. If popes could even discern whether or not this was part of Sacred Tradition, what hope do I, a non theologically educated layperson, have of discerning who actually has the correct sacred tradition?

Are you saying that you cannot trust your current sources?

I think if you cannot trust the authorative documents of your own denominiation, then there is no hope that you can trust those that preceded it.

Luther got many things wrong. That’s why no Lutheran follows Luther.

Research, in part, depends on my own personal interpretation. Since many research and become EO, or RC, or Lutheran, or something else. In part, it’s just going to boil down to my own personal opinion.

Luther got many things wrong. That’s why no Lutheran follows Luther.

Luther got many things wrong. That’s why no Lutheran follows Luther.

This is why it is such a mystery to me that people name their religion after him.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I just read a post from a Lutheran saying that the Augsburg confession and the small catechism are the “official interpretation” of sacred Scritpure and Sacred Tradition for Lutherans. Are you saying that these sources are not sufficient for Lutherans?

Are you saying that you cannot trust your current sources?

I think if you cannot trust the authorative documents of your own denominiation, then there is no hope that you can trust those that preceded it.

This is why it is such a mystery to me that people name their religion after him.

I just read a post from a Lutheran saying that the Augsburg confession and the small catechism are the “official interpretation” of sacred Scritpure and Sacred Tradition for Lutherans. Are you saying that these sources are not sufficient for Lutherans?

Sufficient for what?

I think if you cannot trust the authorative documents of your own denominiation, then there is no hope that you can trust those that preceded it.

Trust them for what?

This is why it is such a mystery to me that people name their religion after him.

My religion is Christianity, and it’s named after Christ.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So now we have gone from “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” to it went off the rails right after it started? Give us all a break!!! Your just trolling for a argument. There is nothing here left to discuss. Enjoy fantasy land.

Christ was not refering to the RC or any denomination.

 

[guanophore]

 Sufficient for what?

Knowing what is right to believe, without having to rely solely on your own private interpretation/opinion/perception? You keep asking “how do I know which one is right?” Do your formal confessions not provide you with sufficient confidence to know that you have chosen right?

Trust them for what?

Being what they claim to be - an accurate statement of how Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition should be understood.

My religion is Christianity, and it’s named after Christ.

That is not what is written on your posts, next to the “religion” category.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Knowing what is right to believe, without having to rely solely on your own private interpretation/opinion/perception? You keep asking “how do I know which one is right?” Do your formal confessions not provide you with sufficient confidence to know that you have chosen right?

Being what they claim to be - an accurate statement of how Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition should be understood.

That is not what is written on your posts, next to the “religion” category.

Knowing what is right to believe, without having to rely solely on your own private interpretation/opinion/perception? You keep asking “how do I know which one is right?” Do your formal confessions not provide you with sufficient confidence to know that you have chosen right?

Yes. Thankfully I don’t have to rely on my private interpretation much. The confessions address most beliefs and doctrines. In that I defer my own judgement to that of the church on such issues.

Being what they claim to be - an accurate statement of how Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition should be understood.

Sure.

That is not what is written on your posts, next to the “religion” category.

So you say. I will make the change immediately.

 

[guanophore]

Yes.  Thankfully I don't have to rely on my private interpretation much.   The confessions address most beliefs and doctrines. In that I defer my own judgement to that of the church on such issues.

Then you have answered your own question. This is how those recipients of the Ancient Faith are with regard to our Sacred Tradition. We trust Jesus.

So you say. I will make the change immediately.

LOL

Well, your posts have already made it clear that your don’t agree/follow them anyhow.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Then you have answered your own question. This is how those recipients of the Ancient Faith are with regard to our Sacred Tradition. We trust Jesus.

LOL

Well, your posts have already made it clear that your don’t agree/follow them anyhow.

Then you have answered your own question. This is how those recipients of the Ancient Faith are with regard to our Sacred Tradition. We trust Jesus.

Which ancient faith? RCs, EOs, OOs, ACEs etc. All trusting Jesus but all following different Sacred Traditions. How is that any better than what Protestants are doing?

Well, your posts have already made it clear that your don’t agree/follow them anyhow

I don’t understand the statement.

Made it clear I don’t follow what?

 

[guanophore]

Which ancient faith? RCs, EOs, OOs, ACEs etc. All trusting Jesus but all following different Sacred Traditions.

The Sacred Tradition is found everywhere the Apostolic faith has been retained. Some Sacred Tradition is found in all Christian ecclesial communities - the 27 books of the NT, for example, and the concept of the Trinity.

How is that any better than what Protestants are doing?

The main difference is that Apostolic faiths are those who have received the faith that was handed down from the Apostles. We are not “people of the book” (bible based Christians). Instead of extracting what we think the faith is from the pages of Holy Scripture, we receive it, then read the Scripture in the light of it.

Made it clear I don’t follow what?

The Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The Sacred Tradition is found everywhere the Apostolic faith has been retained. Some Sacred Tradition is found in all Christian ecclesial communities - the 27 books of the NT, for example, and the concept of the Trinity.

The main difference is that Apostolic faiths are those who have received the faith that was handed down from the Apostles. We are not “people of the book” (bible based Christians). Instead of extracting what we think the faith is from the pages of Holy Scripture, we receive it, then read the Scripture in the light of it.

The Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

The Sacred Tradition is found everywhere the Apostolic faith has been retained. Some Sacred Tradition is found in all Christian ecclesial communities - the 27 books of the NT, for example, and the concept of the Trinity.

Okay, I can buy that.

The main difference is that Apostolic faiths are those who have received the faith that was handed down from the Apostles. We are not “people of the book” (bible based Christians). Instead of extracting what we think the faith is from the pages of Holy Scripture, we receive it, then read the Scripture in the light of it.

Then, it really doesn’t matter that some doctrines aren’t found within scripture?

The Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

I accept them both. Which of my posts have I repudiated anything in either? Please be specific or stop making up things about me.

 

[guanophore]

Then, it really doesn’t matter that some doctrines aren’t found within scripture?

We find them there, but just like seeing the Trinity, it is because we read through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which governs our perceptions of what we read. Those who read without this see differently.

The doctrines came from Christ, through the Apostles. It is preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the Church. No effort was ever made to create a written compendium of the faith. The NT is a collection of letters and memoirs that span as much as a half century, written separately from each other.

The One Faith is reflected in them but is not restricted to them. The One Faith was given to His Disciples:

“…He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.” (Mk 4:34)

"Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures (Lk 24:44–45)

The “everything” and the mindset is what is contained in Sacred Tradition.

" contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. " (Jude 3–4)

It is the One Faith that was given to the Church. It is from that “everything” that the NT was written, so no, everything does not have to be found explicitly in Scripture. It is sufficient that Sacred Tradition and Scripture are harmonious.

 

[Contarini]

Your history is really skewed.

How? The only part that is at all controversial in what he said is the “Frankish domination of the papacy,” which uses pejorative ethnic labeling from Orthodox polemic. But there’s no dispute that between the ninth and eleventh centuries the papacy became more thoroughly “western” and cut off from the Eastern Church, and that this influenced the eventual adoption of the Filioque and the general insensitivity of the papacy to Eastern issues.

I don’t think any Catholic scholar would deny this.

Ediwn