po18guy
Well-known member
But, the very concept of bible alone rejects the form in which Jesus founded His Church. Correct?
- Status
It depends on what you mean by “Bible Alone”. If you are speaking of those who reject all Tradition and teach “if it isn’t in the Bible…”, then I would agree. We don’t teach that. I would venture that the only significant difference between us is that we hold Tradition accountable to scripture, not equal to it. So, I don’t believe that the form is altered by using a different hermeneutical principal. The Church has the teaching authority. The Church preaches the word and administers the sacraments.
We would further contend that what has really changed the form in which Christ founded His Church is universal jurisdiction, but that’s a thread on the non-Catholic Religions forum.
Jon
po18guy
Well-known member
Fair enough, but Jesus taught and empowered the Apostolic Tradition which later produced the scriptures. Scripture itself is also a Tradition (“that which has been handed on”) and to give it precedence over the Holy Spirit lead Apostolic Tradition seems to me unbalanced. Being simply two parallel forms of revelation, they do not oppose or contend with one another; are not subject to one another, but complement each other. Besides, no two Lutherans or Catholics have ever agreed on what the bible means. Some authority must have the God-given power to make the call - and the right call - for all time.
A
adawgj
Guest
Since Scripture took many years to be written spoken word was common. In which the early Christians would not have had access to early biblical writings of the New Testament (accept for some of the Epistles in certain areas). So tradition would have been used in which it is the spoken word which is also backed by St. Paul.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
You do understand the meaning of sola scriptura don’t you? It means THE BIBLE ALONE. There is no Church Authority because that would simply lead back to Catholicism-- Real Catholicism, not Catholicism in name only. You can’t just invent your own NEW CHURCH as a Church Authority, because that is just another incarnation of sola scriptura, albeit an elaborate (and much more deceptive) one. CHURCH AUTHORITY, means returning back to THE CHURCH, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, because that is were the Apostolic Authority resides. You can’t just invest your imaginary church with Church Authority since NO ONE in your Church HAS THAT AUTHORITY to begin with. You MUST have Apostolic Authority. It is the ONLY Church authority. It is THE ONLY Authority recognized BY THE BIBLE! Unfortunately, THE ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, which has apostolic authority, does not recognize any apostolic authority outside of Orthodox or Catholic Churches. Why? Because all other churches are UNBIBLICAL! ALL Protestant churches have cut themselves off from THE CHURCH. It is the one very REAL REALITY of Protestantism.
It’s rather strange that Anglo Catholics consider themselves a true branch of Catholicism too, along with Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Yet no where do they have a branch for Lutheranism (of any kind) since Lutheranism is Protestant especially to other Protestants. Nothing is MORE Protestant than Lutheranism!
John Henry Newman tried vigorously to prove the existence of a Via Media, like your Catholic-Lutheran denomination, but found THAT IN REALITY it just didn’t exist. It remains nothing more than a theory. Your church is self-recognizant only, being unrecognized by all other Protestant and Catholic Churches (as being Catholic.) That is the reality. IOW, a legal fiction.
Now as Protestantism ages and matures it is realizing the fundamental errors (and self-destructive problems) of sola scriptura. It tries assiduously to clothe its definition of sola scriptura in words that dissemble the truth. But it can’t be done. It is like hiding an elephant in a phone booth.
P
pablope
Guest
Well…shouldn’t you?
By Tradition and tradition…which you said you do not disregard…churches were established by those sent with apostolic authority.
By saying this…basically then you are putting a shaft up the Tradition of being sent, being properly ordained…of apostolic authority…
I have asked…and as I recall, no one has provided a direct quote or statement from Luther as to what SS should be properly practiced or where Luther actually defined it…so your definition of SS looks like a 'development of practice…"
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Thank you JonNC for your patient and thoughtful reply.
My question: Who is this “Church” that applies this doctrine of sola scriptura? Are they infallible? If they are, and they infallibly pronounce on the true meaning of Scripture, then you have just nullified sola scriptura, as you have now made this “Church” the final norm holding teachings and doctrines to be consonant with Scripture.
If they are not infallible, then only private judgement can decide whether the teachings and doctrines they have expounded have been faithful to the Bible because they can be wrong. We must hold them (and ourselves) accountable for their mistakes.
I suspect it is the latter, as Lutherans have indeed reversed their theology over time. Isn’t it true that birth control is now tolerated and even expected by Lutherans?
Securus judicat orbis terrarum. It is how we determine whether a church is real or just a theory. It is how Newman finally realized that the Via Media was never more than a theory. Of course a denomination can organize itself on the principles of the via media and declare it exists. But then we just go back to the test of St. Augustine.
Well…shouldn’t you?
Not at all. Our priests are properly ordained, etc. We would welcome mutual recognition with Rome, as well as reconciliation, but we are not asking for it unilaterally.By saying this…basically then you are putting a shaft up the Tradition of being sent, being properly ordained…of apostolic authority…
From what I know, Luther probably never used the term, but, I’m pretty sure he would not have quibbled with the historic Lutheran understanding. And the fact is, while Luther is very important, he was but a man, and there are many things he said that are not accepted by the Church.I have asked…and as I recall, no one has provided a direct quote or statement from Luther as to what SS should be properly practiced or where Luther actually defined it…so your definition of SS looks like a 'development of practice…"
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
Not at all. Our priests are properly ordained, etc
.
According to whom, Jon?
Does the Lutheran confession have the authority to make such a declaration?
Forgive me…but my observation is…this is like a rationalization of lack of proper form of ordination and apostolic authority for your ordinations?
The history of the Church. The Cistercian abbots, for example in the 15th century, practiced presbyter ordination, as we do. Our ordinations are valid under divine law, clearly.Forgive me…but my observation is…this is like a rationalization of lack of proper form of ordination and apostolic authority for your ordinations?
Why not we work together for mutual reconciliation.
The proper definition is listed in the confessions. Lutheranism isn’t all about Luther. All I’m saying is that the term sola scriptura may not have been used by him.
Sola scriptura holds accountable all teachers, Luther included. Additionally, as Chemnitz said, we are also thankful for the teachings of the Church fathers. The historic teachings of the Church are very important to us.
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
So, it isn’t really the line of succession from the laying on of hands by a bishop, it is permission from the Bishop of Rome?
Got it.
Based on the confessions, a return to AS would be the preference of Lutherans.
Not needed, as we already recognize the validity of the orders and sacraments of the Catholic Church. And since the only thing needed for our orders to be viewed by the CC as valid is the pope’s say so, it would seem to me that this would be a dramatic step forward for unity.
Writer Keith Mathison seems to think SS is derived from the early Church, a practice he says Heiko Oberman coined as “Tradition 1”
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19
SS is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, so the Church practices hermeneutics. My standard is the confessions.
Jon
E
ezeekl
Guest
Quote:
=pablope;11147805]
yes…but you forgot to mention…that they had special permission from the Pope to do so…as I recall…for a special circumstance…it was not to be the norm…as you have made it to seem to be…Jon.
“Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God’s Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God’s Word.” [We Believe the Bible and You Do Not by Keith Mathison]](http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/we-believe-bible-and-you-do-not/])
So we see that, in protestantism, God’s Word is not final but rather open for interpretation.
=pablope;11147805]
yes…but you forgot to mention…that they had special permission from the Pope to do so…as I recall…for a special circumstance…it was not to be the norm…as you have made it to seem to be…Jon.
The authority was granted by the Pope so there is no prolem of lack of Apostolic Succession.
So where do Lutherans say that the Apostolic Succession necessary to ordain came from? No Catholic bishop ever went over to protestantism and while some priests did [like Luther] at no time were they, the priests, granted authority to validly administer the sacrament of Holy Orders. So there is a break in the line of succession from the very beginning. Thus the Church would hold Lutheran ordination rituals as not being valid.
Don’t hold your breath. A lot of protestant ministers have converted to Catholicism and very few have been subsequently ordained as Catholic priests. Those that have been ordained were only ordained after attending a Catholic seminary and, as in all cases, approved by the bishop of the diocese in which they would serve.Not needed, as we already recognize the validity of the orders and sacraments of the Catholic Church. And since the only thing needed for our orders to be viewed by the CC as valid is the pope’s say so, it would seem to me that this would be a dramatic step forward for unity.
But he isn’t infallible is he. Therefore his opinion is just his opinion. Besides none of the early church writers agree with him. These writiers give their testimony as to what the church believed during their time. As such they are historical eyewitnesses. Mr. Mathison is not. By the way, Mr. Mathison also wrote this gem:
“Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God’s Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God’s Word.” [We Believe the Bible and You Do Not by Keith Mathison]](http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/we-believe-bible-and-you-do-not/])
So we see that, in protestantism, God’s Word is not final but rather open for interpretation.
So sola scriptura has now morphed into fini sciptura, eh? Come on Jon sola does not mean final and you know it. As for your standard, I think you should have stuck with scripture alone because although, like scripture, the confessions were written by men, those men were not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I take it you are not claiming that they were, are you?
There is no laying on of hands.
Actually, there were bishops in Scandinavia that became Lutheran. I don’t know about other protestant communions.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
The Catholic Church, indeed, might consider our orders invalid. We respectfully disagree, and do not hold to the belief that one must have permission from the Bishop of Rome to ordain.
Actually, there have been quite a few. However, most have gone through a full ordination, as opposed to a conditional ordination, from what I understand.
No one is infallible. My purpose for mentioning Mathison was because he referenced Oberman.
I don’t know about Protestantism, but in Lutheranism interpretation is up to the Church in terms of doctrine, not the individual.
The morphing that’s taken place is in the latter groups and communions, who have changed it into solo scriptura, excluding creed and Tradition. The Lutheran practice is the same now as it was in the 1500’s.
Sola means only, as in: scripture is the only final norm. That is the meaning of sola scriptura, and has always been.
Of course I believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I believe the confessions, while not infallible, are a right reflection of the truth of scripture. They are not at the level of scripture, no human writing is.
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
That is a loaded statement Jon. When Catholics say something is up to the Church, we are referring to the visible Church with Jesus Christ as the Head, infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit, with the Pope as His infallible vicar on earth, the teaching Magisterium and the listening Faithful.
Nothing loaded at all. I am not comparing it to what anyone else believes or practices. In Lutheranism, doctrine is determined by the Church.
As to the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra, we respectfully disagree, as it has no basis in scripture, or the early councils, and was not defined in a truly ecumenical council (since the other patriarchs were not involved).
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
But who is the “church” determining doctrine? It’s tantamount to saying “they” determine doctrine. An anonymous “them?” Personally, I would want it defined very specifically who “they” are. For example, Jehovah Witnesses believe their doctrine comes from the “church/them” too, but in reality it is a committee in Brooklyn NY.
Answer your own question. You would say the Magisterium, but that doesn’t even include all the bishops, even discounting western non-Catholics.
As Lutherans we have the confessions. We also look to the councils of the early church and the creeds. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I look to our synod leadership to interpret the confessions. and settle matter of dispute within the Synod.
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Well, the Magisterium is all the Bishops of the Church in union with the Pope. Why do you say not all bishops? Anyway, the Magisterium when teaching doctrine on matters of Faith and morals is infallible.
You still haven’t really defined who the “church” is that decides your doctrines. Who are these people that write the “confessions.” You may hold some beliefs in common with Early councils and creeds of the Catholic Church, but that is not something distinctly Lutheran.
Maybe you are content not to know who is deciding your doctrine, but I know that would never work for me.
- Status