honestly, I don’t think there’s much difference. You use your confessions to help you interpret scripture and your synod is the ultimate interpretation authority. and neither the Catholic or Lutheran traditions will claim anything as doctrine that they think is opposed to scripture. The only thing I see as different is the source of the actual traditions.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
The Traditions we agree on are the early 7 councils and, of course the three creeds. Beyond that and scripture itself, I would in some ways agree.honestly, I don’t think there’s much difference. You use your confessions to help you interpret scripture and your synod is the ultimate interpretation authority. and neither the Catholic or Lutheran traditions will claim anything as doctrine that they think is opposed to scripture. The only thing I see as different is the source of the actual traditions.
Jon,The Traditions we agree on are the early 7 councils and, of course the three creeds. Beyond that and scripture itself, I would in some ways agree.
The only thing I might add is that the typically referenced understanding of sola scriptura is that which is practiced by , usually, American evangelicals and others who reject the councils and crreds. But then, I would refer to that as solO scriptura.
Jon
Much more on the latter than the former. “Baptism now saves you.” And “…for the remission of sins.” And “He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”Jon,
WE agree on more than we disagree, that is for certain. the 7 councils were about the nature of God. Where we disagree most fundamentally is on the efficacy of the sacraments for salvation (and of course on authority).
Here is a book I would suggest…Brant Pitre’s jesus and the jewish roots of the Eucharist…amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Eucharist-Unlocking/dp/0385531842
So, did the apostles do as Jesus had done?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”.
pablope;10352397:
he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them;
This is the Mass? Man, it’s breakfast! And if it were ther Mass, then it’s being officiated by someone not even baptized.
I agree with you that this meal set out by the jailer isn’t mass. But what has this got to do with the topic (Sola Scriptura)?
So what do you think was going on here?So, did the apostles do as Jesus had done?
The aversion to blood (cannibalism) is well enshrined in Jewish practice
pablope;10352397:
he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them;
This is the Mass? Man, it’s breakfast! And if it were ther Mass, then it’s being officiated by someone not even baptized.
What mass are you talking about? And what is your question here? You really got me confused.
From acts 20:
7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12 The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.
It is the first day of the week.
RevDon;10384108:
I agree that this discussion has gone far afield from the original intent, and I apologize for pursuing that rabbit trail. I believe the parting issue had to do with the authority of tradition over scripture.I agree with you that this meal set out by the jailer isn’t mass. But what has this got to do with the topic (Sola Scriptura)?
I hold that scripture is the approved recollection of the Church, and as such is subject to the authority of the Church. I hold also that the recollection of the Church shaped its sacramental life. The point I wanted to make is that the two --liturgy and scripture-- evolved under the authority of the living experience of the People of God governed by the Holy Spirit, which is the ultimate governing authority.
Yes, I think they do. I think they walk away for many other reasons as well, including inhospitality, abuse of authority, and a host of other human failings in the body of Christ and its leaders.So what do you think was going on here?
Wasn’t it a test of trust in Jesus. The Apostles trusted Jesus and stayed with him, knowing that the rest of the teaching on the eucharist would come later. The other would be disciples thought the teaching was too hard and walked away. In fact, doesn’t that happen over the Eucharist today? Some people just can’t get their heads around the fact that the consecrated host and wine are indeed, Jesus’ true body and blood, and don’t they walk away just as their predecessors did?
RevDon,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.”
I see you have no understanding of Church history in the period prior to Gregory the Great.RevDon,
There were no other Christain communities that came to adopt the mass. The mass was always part of the Christian Church.
RevDon;10384108:
Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12 The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.What mass are you talking about? And what is your question here? You really got me confused.
From acts 20:
7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.
It is the first day of the week.
Yes, I suppose they ate on Sunday. Not every reference to breaking bread is the Mass. Paul criticizes the Corinthians for what they think is Eucharist because it is uncharitable.
Thank you for this very succinct post. I agree completely.Tradition for Christians means what the Apostles handed on to us. The English word tradition is taken from the Latin traditio, which means “to hand on,” as in, e.g., a relay race. We get the Bible from what the Apostles handed on to the Church has as being sacred scripture (the Old Testament) and also what they (the Apostles) themselves wrote. It was the Catholic Church that determined which books (Gospels, Epistles etc.) were inspired by God and which were not.
Every Christian who holds the Bible dear thanks the Catholic Church, whether they know it or not.
Reverend,I see you have no understanding of Church history in the period prior to Gregory the Great.
There were and still are versions of the Mass not based on the Roman Missal,
Of course! But it’s irrelevant to my statement.Reverend,
Do you accept that the Eucharist is the central focus of worship in the Christian Church, that would include
Oriental Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox
Catholic Latin/East
or do you belive otherwise and what is that belief?
RevDon,Of course! But it’s irrelevant to my statement.
I’m not really sure what you are getting at, Coptic Christian.RevDon,
relevance is relative.
Do you also accept that the Protocanonicals represent only a translation, wrongly removed the DC, and cannot be proved to be the word of God?
All things are relative.