John Martignoni's new tract on Sola Scriptura

[RevDon]

You are talking about minutia. the prayers differ from day to day now.- that’s why the sacremantary is a book, not a sheet of paper. And the various churchs aligned with Rome have different rites as well. The fundamental flow and the REASON for the mass have remained unchanged. That is its essence

That’s what I have been trying to establish. The Fundamental flow and reason are the same. But the Mass is a development from those early communal worship services. There was anamnesis, but not epiclesis, for example. Both are necessary in what we call Mass.

 

[RevDon]

That’s what I have been trying to establish. The Fundamental flow and reason are the same. But the Mass is a development from those early communal worship services. There was anamnesis, but not epiclesis, for example. Both are necessary in what we call Mass.

The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the West after the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the early Church having used the expression the “breaking of bread” (fractio panis) or “liturgy” (Acts 13:2, leitourgountes); the Greek Church has employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries.

There were current in the early days of Christianity other terms;
•“The Lord’s Supper” (coena dominica),
•the “Sacrifice” (prosphora, oblatio),
•“the gathering together” (synaxis, congregatio),
•“the Mysteries”, and
•(since Augustine), “the Sacrament of the Altar”.

With the name “Love Feast” (agape) the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily connected. Etymologically, the word missa is neither (as Baronius states) from a Hebrew, nor from the Greek mysis, but is simply derived from missio, just as oblata is derived from oblatio, collecta from collectio, and ulta from ultio. The reference was however not to a Divine “mission”, but simply to a “dismissal” (dimissio) as was also customary in the Greek rite (cf. “Canon. Apost.”, VIII, xv: apolyesthe en eirene), and as is still echoed in the phrase Ite missa est. This solemn form of leave-taking was not introduced by the Church as something new, but was adopted from the ordinary language of the day, as is shown by Bishop Avitus of Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX, 199):

 

[paul_c]

That’s what I have been trying to establish. The Fundamental flow and reason are the same. But the Mass is a development from those early communal worship services. There was anamnesis, but not epiclesis, for example. Both are necessary in what we call Mass.

Actually, the epiclesis is not necessary, the words of Christ consecrate the host and wine… But what has this got to do with Sola Scriptura? Other than to point out , of course that Catholic tradition is not based solely on scripture.

 

[Rosinante]

Not at all. I merely contend that the Mass is a development that evolved from Jewish (and for that matter, Gentile) communal meals at which the Christ mystery was recalled. They were breaking of bread. They were the Lord’s Supper. They just weren’t the Mass. There are key elements that we require for the Mass that took some time to develop. Those elements developed differently in different places. In time, many-but not all- Christian communities came to adopt the forms used at Rome. The pivotal word in my argument is “evolved.”

If your contention had any validity whatsoever, there would have been ZERO need to exclude the UNBAPTIZED from the liturgy of the Eucharist–going back to the earliest record of the MASS–by any other name. Why exclude the unbaptized from a mere ‘breaking of bread’??? Yeshua broke bread with tax collectors, rich guys, harlots…all kinds of sketchy types. From whence then, did the apostles develop this exclusionery practice???

John 6:66-- “…and from that time, many disciples walked with him no more.”

Those disciples turned away, precisely in response to Yeshua’s admonition on the necessity of “eating the flesh of teh Son of Man, and drinking his blood”.

Then there is St. Paul’s letter to the Conrinthians–just four versus after those you cited:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

1 Cor. 11:29 (Douay Rheims)

…and finally, there is the actual Tradition, handed down, through the ages.

[edited: withdrawn]

 

[RevDon]

Actually, the epiclesis is not necessary, the words of Christ consecrate the host and wine… But what has this got to do with Sola Scriptura? Other than to point out , of course that Catholic tradition is not based solely on scripture.

And on that we are in perfect agreement

 

[RevDon]

If your contention had any validity whatsoever, there would have been ZERO need to exclude the UNBAPTIZED from the liturgy of the Eucharist–going back to the earliest record of the MASS–by any other name. Why exclude the unbaptized from a mere ‘breaking of bread’??? Yeshua broke bread with tax collectors, rich guys, harlots…all kinds of sketchy types. From whence then, did the apostles develop this exclusionery practice???

John 6:66-- “…and from that time, many disciples walked with him no more.”

Those disciples turned away, precisely in response to Yeshua’s admonition on the necessity of “eating the flesh of teh Son of Man, and drinking his blood”.

Then there is St. Paul’s letter to the Conrinthians–just four versus after those you cited:

1 Cor. 11:29 (Douay Rheims)

…and finally, there is the actual Tradition, handed down, through the ages.

[edited: withdrawn]

I have been contending from the first that yes, Eucharist was part of the spiritual life of the earliest Christians. I only hold that the means to} it was not the Mass, but rather a proto-service that eventually developed into what we can call the Mass.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Introduction
Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. This belief is known as Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.

Catholic Christians, however, believe that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are authoritative and that both are necessary when deciding what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. Whose right? Let’s look at this situation from three perspectives: logical, scriptural, and historical.

This is a Counter-reformation formulation of Catholic belief.

It would be better to say that Catholics, in practice, believe in a ‘trinity’ of authority: scripture or, better, the Word of God *, the Magisterium (or, better, the living Church) and “Tradition”.

The Church determined the canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit by searching the riches she already possessed: i.e., particularly in this case, the scriptures. She “discovered” a treasure (the canon of scripture) she already possessed*, which she had only because they were “handed down” to her from the Apostles (“handed down from the Apostles” = Tradition, from the Latin traditio, “to hand on”). This process is the Holy Spirit fulfilling Christ’s promise to lead us into the truth. The Holy Spirit animates the whole Church; however, what Catholics call “the Magisterium” enjoys special protection.

So the Word of God (e.g., as expressed in the scriptures) lives and speaks in and to the living Church; and the Holy Spirit (also living in the Church) guides and leads her and points or directs her to the riches of Christ or Christ Himself which, in effect, is a return to the first “step”: i.e., the Word of God. It’s a cyclical process, more organic than mechanical, and therefore rightly thought of as akin to the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Church_Militant]

We need to drop the discussion of the Mass and focus on Sola Scriptura which is what this thread and tract are about.

If you want to discuss/debate the Mass then open a new thread on it.

 

[John_Martignoni]

This is a Counter-reformation formulation of Catholic belief.

It would be better to say that Catholics, in practice, believe in a ‘trinity’ of authority: scripture or, better, the Word of God *, the Magisterium (or, better, the living Church) and “Tradition”. *

Actually, Sacred Tradition is also considered to be the Word of God.

 

[Tomyris]

Actually, Sacred Tradition is also considered to be the Word of God.

Welcome to the discussion.
Which side are you on?

If you will remember, I am here only to critique the first line or so of your tract.

 

[John_Martignoni]

Back to the OP:

I wonder who these “Many Christians” are who reject any subsidiary or inferior authority?
I would expect most Christians recognize denominational and pastoral authority, so he seems to be addressing only those Lone Ranger types who totally reject the idea of church. I doubt that can be considered “many”. My understanding of SS is that Scripture is the Sole ULTIMATE authority, which allows things such as denominational doctrinal platforms to be regarded as authoritative, as long as they defer to Scripture if shown to contradict Scripture. I’ve never heard anyone state that nothing except Scripture is to be considered to be any sort of authority.

This is a mis-reading and mis-characterization of what I wrote. The context is the difference between accepting Sola Scriptura vs. accepting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in determining authentic Christian teaching and practice. It has nothing to do with whether or not a pastor at some church has the authority to replace the oven in his church hall or not.

However, to your point, I would ask which Christians who claim to “recognize denominational and pastoral authority” would defer to those authorities if those authorities try to get them to accept as true something that is contrary to the individual Christian’s interpretation of Scripture? That’s why “Bible-only” Christians leave this or that church on a regular basis. Because they disagree with the “authority” over interpretations of Scripture. They give the denomination and/or pastor of their particular church, authority over them only so long as the denomination and/or the pastor agree with their individual interpretation of Scripture.

Authority that is ceded to the denomination or the pastor by the individual, and not inherent in the pastor or the denomination, and which the individual can reject whenever they choose, is not really authority. So, while many Christians may give lip service to this idea of denominational or church authority, in practice, these have little actual authority over the individual when it comes to what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. What matters most, is the individual Christian’s private interpretation of Scripture, and Scripture alone. So, I assert that the definition I used is, in more ways than one, on the mark.

 

[Rosinante]

This is a mis-reading and mis-characterization of what I wrote. The context is the difference between accepting Sola Scriptura vs. accepting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in determining authentic Christian teaching and practice…

…

…So, while many Christians may give lip service to this idea of denominational or church authority, in practice, these have little actual authority over the individual when it comes to what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. What matters most, is the individual Christian’s private interpretation of Scripture, and Scripture alone. So, I assert that the definition I used is, in more ways than one, on the mark.

This doesn’t strike you as problematic??? Have you ever noticed these random fruitcakes who run around with a copy of the US Constitution, telling everybody in earshot, about how THEY interpret the Constitution??? Who cares what some fruitcake in the court parking lot reads in the USC–what matters, is how the Supreme Court interprets it, and how it is applied, by the other branches of government. That’s not to say that every Am. oughtn’t own a copy of the USC, and be well versed in it–but they must respect the very structure established thereby, and advocate their interpretation of it, within its constructs.

If every American subscribed to their own personal interpretation of the USC, and disregared the USSC (sup. Ct.) --there would be no UNITED States of America. Just a bunch of states (assuming they didn’t take to interpretting their own state constitutions in the saem manner…).

Same principle applies wrt scripture.

Too bad protestants have more respect for the secular authorities, than the authoritative structure Yeshua actually bequeathed to his followers, who did the same for theirs, on down the line, to this very day.

Yeshua left us a Church, not a Bible. In fact, that Church gave us the Bible. What’s more, in that very same Bible, HE is recorded as having written absolutely NOTHING down (other than in the sand, with a stick–or his finger)–despite clearly having been quite learned and literate (e.g.–lecturing the elders in the Temple)…yet from this very same Bible, Martin Luther discerned sola scriptura–and led so many believers to abandon the Church that Yeshua founded, for their own interpretation of scripture…

 

[Tomyris]

This is a mis-reading and mis-characterization of what I wrote.

Sorry, I read what you wrote. I stand by what I said. Don’t try I “I didn’t mean what I said”. You published this and that is the first sentence, which sets the context. Don’t shift ground. Defend your position. Defend your quote. But I do not think you can.

The context is the difference between accepting Sola Scriptura vs. accepting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in determining authentic Christian teaching and practice.

Perhaps you should have explained that? You did not provide or even hint at that context. You are shifting ground here, perhaps even agreeing with me. Or are you implicitly admitting your tract needs some editing to correct a misleading impression?

However, to your point, I would ask which Christians who claim to “recognize denominational and pastoral authority” would defer to those authorities if those authorities try to get them to accept as true something that is contrary to the individual Christian’s interpretation of Scripture? That’s why “Bible-only” Christians leave this or that church on a regular basis. Because they disagree with the “authority” over interpretations of Scripture. They give the denomination and/or pastor of their particular church, authority over them only so long as the denomination and/or the pastor agree with their individual interpretation of Scripture…

Here you are shifting ground from talking about how some Christians deny any authority except what is in the Bible to discussing whether the authority they recognize is legitimate, thereby proving my point, no? You are admitting they recognize an authority besides the Bible, even if it is inferior to the Bible.

I am not convinced you understand how authority is practiced among Protestants. From what you wrote, I doubt you have much experience with the subject. But that is off thread. At the moment, we have not gotten past your first sentence.

Are you trying to avoid the point that I already made and it seems to me you actually agree with? And that point is that there are few if any Christians who admit no authority except that in the Scripture. I am pointing out they recognize subsidiary authority (which you agree with that they recognize something besides the Bible as authoritative) , so your first sentence is actually a straw man, and your whole argument is based on a false premise. “Many Christians” of course is one of those sweeping generalizations. If I started a thread or something with “Many Catholics…” I would slap myself and start over with something like “That evil Microsoft robot Bob in the next cubicle is Catholic, and I have a problem with what he said about church authority.” Sweeping generalizations should be swept out the door.

Once you admit they recognize another authority, even an inferior one, your whole tract is a pile of straw. It does not matter if you think it is real or not. It matters that they do.

 

[John_Martignoni]

Sorry, I read what you wrote. I stand by what I said. Don’t try I “I didn’t mean what I said”. You published this and that is the first sentence, which sets the context. Don’t shift ground. Defend your position. Defend your quote. But I do not think you can.

Once again, you are reading things into my words that are not there. Sorry, not shifting ground at all. I do indeed stand by what I said. Your statement that the first sentence “sets the context” is not valid. At least, not if you mean, which you appear to, that it sets the context all by itself. It does not. For example, here is the first sentence of a book I am currently reading, “These pages provide a short course aimed at bringing the reader up to date regarding the Gospels.” Now, can you tell me if this author is writing in the context of someone who believes the Gospels actually convey the real words and deeds of Jesus Christ? Or, is it written in the context of someone who completely spiritualizes and mythologizes the words and deeds of Jesus? Is the author Protestant, Catholic, neither? Did the first sentence provide you the context of the book? No, it did not, not by itself. In other words, your initial claim regarding context is not valid.

The context is provided by the first sentence in conjunction with the entire body of what was written. And, a careful reading of the entire tract reveals that I am not speaking to whether or not a denomination has any authority over its members or if a pastor of a particular congregation has the authority to buy new microphones for the church. I am speaking about the authority to decide on important matters, matters related essentially to doctrine and dogma. Could I have explained that, and other things within the tract more explicitly, yes - but I was working under the restriction of a 2000 word limit. So, I could not say everything I would have said if, for instance, I had had a 3000 word limit, or a 4000 word limit, and so on.

Perhaps you should have explained that? You did not provide or even hint at that context. You are shifting ground here, perhaps even agreeing with me. Or are you implicitly admitting your tract needs some editing to correct a misleading impression?

Again, 2000 word limit. Again, a non-valid assertion. I started off the tract talking about Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Scripture plus Sacred Tradition. How can you assert that I did not “even hint” at that? Did you by any chance make it to the 3rd sentence? Also, in each of the first two sections I spoke about Sacred Tradition. Or am I misunderstanding and you are asserting that discussing Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Scripture plus Sacred Tradition is not a context relating to serious matters of Christian belief?

Regarding editing, I will never say that anything I write is written as well as it could be. I’m always open to hearing feedback, although it helps if the feedback is not deliberately antagonistic as to things that I have written and/or said.

Here you are shifting ground from talking about how some Christians deny any authority except what is in the Bible to discussing whether the authority they recognize is legitimate, thereby proving my point, no? You are admitting they recognize an authority besides the Bible, even if it is inferior to the Bible.

No, I am not shifting ground. Again, the point of the tract is not about “how some Christians deny any authority except what is in the Bible.” I fully recognize that most Christians grant the authority to their pastor, or to the elders, to decide whether or not to buy a new stove for the church hall. This tract is not about that. However, you are certainly free to interpret the tract in that manner if you are of a will to do so. After all, if you are free to interpret the Bible in any manner you see fit, then who am I to tell you you can’t interpret my humble little tract in any manner you see fit?

The point of what I was saying, is that there is no inherent authority in a particular church or tradition within Protestantism. There is only the authority that any individual Protestant gives it. The authority comes from the bottom up, not the top down. And, that ceding of authority can be withdrawn at any time. Do you, or the elders of your church, vote for who the next pastor is going to be? Can they oust a particular pastor if they don’t like what he teaches? If you are Anglican, do you accept that your church now teaches that homosexuality is not a sin against God? Is that teaching binding on anyone who calls themselves Anglican? If you are Lutheran, do you accept the tradition that Martin Luther accepted about Mary’s perpetual virginity? If not, why not? If you disagree with what your pastor teaches on a given Sunday about some doctrine, will you accept your pastor’s authority on that and deny your individual interpretation of Scripture on the matter? In other words, when it comes right down to it, the majority of Protestants will not let anything come between them and their own private interpretation of Scripture, and Scripture alone. That is what that tract is about.

 

[John_Martignoni]

I am not convinced you understand how authority is practiced among Protestants. From what you wrote, I doubt you have much experience with the subject. But that is off thread. At the moment, we have not gotten past your first sentence.

No offense, but it is not a particular concern of mine as to whether or not you are convinced about my understanding of Protestant authority.

Are you trying to avoid the point that I already made and it seems to me you actually agree with? And that point is that there are few if any Christians who admit no authority except that in the Scripture. I am pointing out they recognize subsidiary authority (which you agree with that they recognize something besides the Bible as authoritative) , so your first sentence is actually a straw man, and your whole argument is based on a false premise. “Many Christians” of course is one of those sweeping generalizations. If I started a thread or something with “Many Catholics…” I would slap myself and start over with something like “That evil Microsoft robot Bob in the next cubicle is Catholic, and I have a problem with what he said about church authority.” Sweeping generalizations should be swept out the door.

Nope, I’m not avoiding anything. Protestant Christians do indeed recognize subsidiary authority to the point that they cede that authority. For instance, they recognize that the church secretary usually has the authority to buy office supplies. They recognize that the pastor has the authority to buy a new oven for the church hall. They recognize that they have the authority to vote out the pastor if they don’t like what he teaches. And so on. But, can you give me the authority, or the tradition, that can come between the individual Protestant and his interpretation of the Bible?

Once you admit they recognize another authority, even an inferior one, your whole tract is a pile of straw. It does not matter if you think it is real or not. It matters that they do.

Sorry, but I do not cede to you the authority to tell me what it is I meant by what I said. I know you’re used to doing that with the Bible, but the Bible can’t talk back to you to tell you, “Sorry, you got it wrong.” I can, and I am. If you wish to continue, I am open to constructive criticism, but I am not open to someone telling me what it is I am thinking and what it is I meant by what I said. Again, I am always open to legitimate criticism that I did not say something as well as I could have, but that is not what you are doing.

 

[JonNC]

The point of what I was saying, is that there is no inherent authority in a particular church or tradition within Protestantism. There is only the authority that any individual Protestant gives it. The authority comes from the bottom up, not the top down. And, that ceding of authority can be withdrawn at any time. Do you, or the elders of your church, vote for who the next pastor is going to be? Can they oust a particular pastor if they don’t like what he teaches? If you are Anglican, do you accept that your church now teaches that homosexuality is not a sin against God? Is that teaching binding on anyone who calls themselves Anglican?** If you are Lutheran, do you accept the tradition that Martin Luther accepted about Mary’s perpetual virginity? If not, why not? If you disagree with what your pastor teaches on a given Sunday about some doctrine, will you accept your pastor’s authority on that and deny your individual interpretation of Scripture on the matter? In other words, when it comes right down to it, the majority of Protestants will not let anything come between them and their own private interpretation of Scripture, and Scripture alone. That is what that tract is about**.

Lutheran understanding of the marian doctrines, with the exception of the virgin birth and Holy Theotokos, is adiaphora. So to ask a Lutheran this implies that just because Luther believed it, we have to, and it’s a misunderstanding even Luther’s poistion on the matter. He believed it, as do I, as do and did most of the theologians in Lutheran history, but it is not a doctrine which binds the conscience in Lutheranism.

In Lutheranism, scripture is the sole final norm for determining doctrine, and Lutherans believe that the Lutheran Confessions rightly reflect the truth of scripture. When it comes to doctrine, it doesn’t matter what my pastor says, but instead matters what the confessions say. If my pastor preaches something that is in contradiction to the confessions, I would first take it to him, then to the synod. I, and he, are welcome to our beliefs regarding adiaphora, such as the sempre virgo or the assumption, but not on doctrine.
You are right, however, that this is not necessarily the case for protestants.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Lutheran understanding of the marian doctrines, with the exception of the virgin birth and Holy Theotokos, is adiaphora. So to ask a Lutheran this implies that just because Luther believed it, we have to, and it’s a misunderstanding even Luther’s poistion on the matter. He believed it, as do I, as do and did most of the theologians in Lutheran history, but it is not a doctrine which binds the conscience in Lutheranism.

In Lutheranism, scripture is the sole final norm for determining doctrine, and Lutherans believe that the Lutheran Confessions rightly reflect the truth of scripture. When it comes to doctrine, it doesn’t matter what my pastor says, but instead matters what the confessions say. If my pastor preaches something that is in contradiction to the confessions, I would first take it to him, then to the synod. I, and he, are welcome to our beliefs regarding adiaphora, such as the sempre virgo or the assumption, but not on doctrine.
You are right, however, that this is not necessarily the case for protestants.

Jon

Jon, I never understood the authority you use for doctrinal interpretation. So let me paraphrase so I get this right. Scripture is the final norm for determining doctrine. But because its hard sometimes to tease all pertinent doctrine out of scripture, you have a second literary reference to use- the Lutheran Confessions, which I assume is basically a written form of Lutheran Tradition. Probably similar to how we use the catechism.

Then it gets interesting in how you say your relationship is to your pastor. You say that if you interpret the confessions differently than your pastor, you try to work it out with him and if you can’t reconcile, you take it to the synod. This seems very reasonable. If I had a question with my parish priest that we couldn’t resolve, I would have similar recourse to the bishop, and if necessary to the vatican, which is our final authority

But for you,what happens next?. What if your interpretation is different than the synod’s. To you take their word for it, which of course makes the synod the final authority, or do you persist in your own view no matter what they say, (which of course,makes YOU the final authority? I’m really curious to see how this works in real life.

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;10375990]Jon, I never understood the authority you use for doctrinal interpretation. So let me paraphrase so I get this right. Scripture is the final norm for determining doctrine. But because its hard sometimes to tease all pertinent doctrine out of scripture, you have a second literary reference to use- the Lutheran Confessions, which I assume is basically a written form of Lutheran Tradition. Probably similar to how we use the catechism.

The comparison of the Confessions and the Catholic Catechism is rather close.

Then it gets interesting in how you say your relationship is to your pastor. You say that if you interpret the confessions differently than your pastor, you try to work it out with him and if you can’t reconcile, you take it to the synod. This seems very reasonable. If I had a question with my parish priest that we couldn’t resolve, I would have similar recourse to the bishop, and if necessary to the vatican, which is our final authority

Ok.

But for you,what happens next?. What if your interpretation is different than the synod’s. To you take their word for it, which of course makes the synod the final authority, or do you persist in your own view no matter what they say, (which of course,makes YOU the final authority? I’m really curious to see how this works in real life.

Let’s separate doctrine from adiaphora. If it is a matter of adiaphora, and pastor should not present his belief as doctrine. For example, if the pastor states as doctrine that the Blessed Virgin had other children, this would be innapropriate, and I would confront him (privately ) on the matter. We should agree to disagree on the smpre virgo, as it is not doctrine, and ought not be preached from the pulpit as such.

In doctrine, however, let’s use the example of the Eucharist, if he proposes a Calvinist veiwpoint, I will first take it to him in private, and point out the error, using scripture, the confessions and synod writings. If he persists, I take it to the district (the LCMS has a series of districts, not unlike diocese), then to the synod. Now, on the topic I mentioned, I win flatout because the RP is clear Lutheran doctrine. However, for the sake of example, let’s say his understanding of doctrine is accepted by the Synod as reflecting scripture and the confessions, I am, to remain Lutheran, obliged to accept the doctrinal teaching.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

The comparison of the Confessions and the Catholic Catechism is rather close.

Let’s separate doctrine from adiaphora. If it is a matter of adiaphora, and pastor should not present his belief as doctrine. For example, if the pastor states as doctrine that the Blessed Virgin had other children, this would be innapropriate, and I would confront him (privately ) on the matter. We should agree to disagree on the smpre virgo, as it is not doctrine, and ought not be preached from the pulpit as such.

In doctrine, however, let’s use the example of the Eucharist, if he proposes a Calvinist veiwpoint, I will first take it to him in private, and point out the error, using scripture, the confessions and synod writings. If he persists, I take it to the district (the LCMS has a series of districts, not unlike diocese), then to the synod. Now, on the topic I mentioned, I win flatout because the RP is clear Lutheran doctrine. However, for the sake of example, let’s say his understanding of doctrine is accepted by the Synod as reflecting scripture and the confessions, I am, to remain Lutheran, obliged to accept the doctrinal teaching.

Jon

Thank you for the clarity. I understand much better now. It appears to me (and I could be still confused) that your approach to scriptural interpretation in the end isn’t a lot different than that of a Catholic viewpoint. You look to the confessions and then the pastor, then the district then the synod, much as we would look to the catechism, the pastor, the bishop and the vatican. The only real difference that I can see is the magesterium vs the synod as the interpretitive authority. It makes me think that sola scriptura isn’t what it says.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for the clarity. I understand much better now. It appears to me (and I could be still confused) that your approach to scriptural interpretation in the end isn’t a lot different than that of a Catholic viewpoint. You look to the confessions and then the pastor, then the district then the synod, much as we would look to the catechism, the pastor, the bishop and the vatican. The only real difference that I can see is the magesterium vs the synod as the interpretitive authority. It makes me think that sola scriptura isn’t what it says.

Hi Paul,
I see it this way: sola scriptura is the practice of the Church for holding doctrine accountable. The Catholic Church uses Tradition and Scripture in a similar way.
the major difference is that we hold Tradition as secondary to scripture.

Jon