Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Annie39]

“Rome really has nothing to do with Catholicism, it is only that the head of the CC happens to be in Rome. If the Pope decided for good reason to move to another city, he would still be the Pope and head of the CC.”

Well I don’t know about that. If he does try to move to another city St. Catherine of Siena might just say “don’t make me come down there and deal with you.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

You also said they didn’t use the confessions in adult education, so I’m not sure that parish is a good example.

Jon

Three congregations. Two in Orange County, CA, One in Riverside County, CA

They were all LCMS all graduated from Concordia. All knew each other well.

Annie

 

[steido01]

So did you distance yourself from Luther too? Did your church begin with the guys who wrote the Confessions? Do you acknowledge that the Arians in Egypt were also Catholic? If not why not?

1. No. Neither has any other Lutheran in this thread.
2. No. The church began at Pentacost.
3. No. This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Annie, it is clear that you did not receive a solid catechesis at the Lutheran church you attended. I am so sorry for you. Until you read our confessions, I don’t know that you’ll understand Lutheranism enough to have a meaningful conversation about it and it’s roots. So until then… Bye.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes of course, but did Luther correctly interpret Scripture? and who can rightly interpret Scripture since it my understanding as a catholic that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand in teaching since when the Apostles were teaching there was no NT to refer to as a supreme authority in the Church.

Protestants would argue that Rome has added to the Tradition, i.e. the deposit of faith.

 

[Annie39]

1. No. Neither has any other Lutheran in this thread.
2. No. The church began at Pentacost.
3. No. This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Annie, it is clear that you did not receive a solid catechesis at the Lutheran church you attended. I am so sorry for you. Until you read our confessions, I don’t know that you’ll understand Lutheranism enough to have a meaningful conversation about it and it’s roots. So until then… Bye.

I have no idea why you think that I should read the confessions. Was that in existance at pentecost? Is it part of revealed truth? If so please prove it.

Luther was excommunicated for heresy. Lutherans do not preach the true gospel. This has been dealt with over and over again on CA here is one.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127284

 

[spina1953]

“Rome really has nothing to do with Catholicism, it is only that the head of the CC happens to be in Rome. If the Pope decided for good reason to move to another city, he would still be the Pope and head of the CC.”

Well I don’t know about that. If he does try to move to another city St. Catherine of Siena might just say “don’t make me come down there and deal with you.

Annie

Hi Annie39: It was a different time and the reasons as to why the Pope moved to France was or were not really good reasons. let me ask you this if for some reason the Pope had to move from Rome because it had been bombed and no one was able to live there, would St Catherine of Siena come down and deal with the Pope for having to move because no one could no longer live in Rome?

The reason I say this is because the chair of Peter and the holder of the Keys do not depend on being in Rome. The Orthodox seem to think or some do that Rome being a political capital of the Roman empire is the reason which the Papacy claim for authority. While this is not true since it was not the emperor but Christ Himself who gave Peter authority of the keys. Peter could have gone anywhere and set his chair up, so it is not really the city that is important but the Chair of peter wherever it may be. But that is MHO.

 

[spina1953]

Protestants would argue that Rome has added to the Tradition, i.e. the deposit of faith.

Yes! I agree with you on that score. Protestants have a different understanding of Tradition and think Tradition is the same as tradition which of course it is not. At least that appears to me from what I have read and heard from other Protestants.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie39: It was a different time and the reasons as to why the Pope moved to France was or were not really good reasons. let me ask you this if for some reason the Pope had to move from Rome because it had been bombed and no one was able to live there, would St Catherine of Siena come down and deal with the Pope for having to move because no one could no longer live in Rome?

The reason I say this is because the chair of Peter and the holder of the Keys do not depend on being in Rome. The Orthodox seem to think or some do that Rome being a political capital of the Roman empire is the reason which the Papacy claim for authority. While this is not true since it was not the emperor but Christ Himself who gave Peter authority of the keys. Peter could have gone anywhere and set his chair up, so it is not really the city that is important but the Chair of peter wherever it may be. But that is MHO.

Yes this is true. Peter’s first See was Antioch. The authority was given to the man not a geographic area. It’s true that the Orthodox taught (teach?) that the Roman empire was the reason the Papacy claimed authority and they claimed that the Bishop of Constantinople was the head of the Church since Constantinople was the New Rome. Still there were problems while the Bishop was in Avignon So it isn’t just your opinion, it is true.

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes! I agree with you on that score. Protestants have a different understanding of Tradition and think Tradition is the same as tradition which of course it is not. At least that appears to me from what I have read and heard from other Protestants.

Some of us are a bit more nuanced. I’d say that Tradition is the rule of faith, as some of the earliest fathers outline it. We interpret the Scriptures in light of the rule of faith, but shouldn’t go beyond it.

At least, that is, as far as dogma goes; theological speculation is entirely legitimate, but shouldn’t be required of every Christian.

 

[Novocastrian]

I have no idea why you think that I should read the confessions. Was that in existance at pentecost? Is it part of revealed truth? If so please prove it.

This is an argument for sola scriptura, of the kind you favour! If one oughtn’t to read anything beyond revelation itself, then there’s certainly no room for the magisterium of the Church…

 

[spina1953]

Some of us are a bit more nuanced. I’d say that Tradition is the rule of faith, as some of the earliest fathers outline it. We interpret the Scriptures in light of the rule of faith, but shouldn’t go beyond it.

At least, that is, as far as dogma goes; theological speculation is entirely legitimate, but shouldn’t be required of every Christian.

Novocastrian: Right on!

 

[Novocastrian]

Novocastrian: Right on!

While I suspect we disagree on the details, it’s heartening that we agree on a basic methodology of doctrine. It makes for a much friendlier and more understanding disagreement, real though our differences are!

 

[spina1953]

Yes this is true. Peter’s first See was Antioch. The authority was given to the man not a geographic area. It’s true that the Orthodox taught (teach?) that the Roman empire was the reason the Papacy claimed authority and they claimed that the Bishop of Constantinople was the head of the Church since Constantinople was the New Rome. Still there were problems while the Bishop was in Avignon So it isn’t just your opinion, it is true.

Annie

Hi Annie 39: Yes, it is true that those Popes who lived in Avignon were there I think mostly due to the French having some control over the papacy at that time. I also think that some of the Popes were French but I could be wrong about that but that is what I seem to remember of history.

 

[Topper17]

Hi House,

In post number 104, you cut and pasted a quote about Luther’s ‘so called’ ‘translation’ of the New Testament and his doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone:

Actually many Christians, including Catholics are okay with it. And many early church fathers agreed.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

The text of House’s quote to continue.

 

[Topper17]

The text of House’s quote continues

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

House - about six weeks ago, this exact same cut and paste was posted in the “When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?” thread. My response was as follows:

A few years ago I looked into this quote from Fitzmyer. I wanted to find out whether these Fathers actually supported the Protestant concept of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA). I searched for the actual quotes and finally gave up before I got to Augustine because previous 13 quotes or so were not available online. (they might be now) I also found a comment from a frequent poster on Dave Armstrong’s excellent blog about the Fitzmyer quote:

“Adomnan said… Protestants like to comb through the Fathers and look for places where they use “faith alone” in connection with justification. Vermigli was playing that game in those links you provided. Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentary on Romans, provides a list of such citations from the Fathers.

However, when you read them in context, they never carry the implications that Protestants give to “faith alone.”” Adomnan

This makes perfect sense. Over the years I have noticed that Protestants are especially fond of the argument that Luther’s SBFA had been taught previously, somewhere by someone. If that were actually true, it would not have clanged so badly when Luther began to teach it. In addition, we would not have all of the various Protestant and Catholic Scholars admitting that Luther’s belief on Salvation was ‘radical’ and a ‘discontinuity’. (References available of course). If there are reputable Scholars who disagree, I would love to see their quotes.

Quite frankly, I don’t put much stock in the Fitzmyer quote since it is not clear what Fitzmyer is really claiming about those various Fathers. On the other hand if those Fathers actually could be (credibly) interpreted as supporting the Protestant (Martin Lutheran) concept of SBFA, we would certainly have heard them shouted from the mountaintops constantly by Protestant apologists for hundreds of years. But we haven’t. Instead we have something that can be cut and pasted from a blog and presented as being the truth.

It is possible that Fitzmyer actually wrote what the quote seems to say. Only a fair reading of the surrounding text would prove that point and the fact that it was not included should be telling. On the other hand, it is not exactly impossible to believe that in a Church of 1.1 billion people, one could find a liberal scholar who is attracted to a version of Salvation with less ‘obligations’.

Again I said: I wanted to find out whether these Fathers actually supported the Protestant concept of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA).

Interestingly, our resident Professor of Church History Dr. Edwin (currently swimming somewhere in the Tiber) then posted the following in response to this particular comment:

Of course they don’t support Luther’s doctrine, because they are (not that I’ve read all of them, but I did do a paper in grad school that dealt with Ambrosiaster and other pre-Augustinian theologians in comparison with Augustine) **talking about initial justification. **

But the point is that Luther’s translation in Romans 3:28 is not in itself an outrageous choice or an obvious heresy.

That makes perfect sense. IF those quotes supported Luther’s radical never before taught doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, we Catholic Apologists would dealing with them daily. Instead, the only times I have ever seen them in this fashion they have come from the same source. Other than this source I have never seen any of these quotes used to substantiate Luther’s position. But then again, we didn’t see them support his position here either did we.

I would suggest that IF these Father’s quotes actually DID support Protestant teaching on Salvation, the ACTUAL QUOTES of ALL of these Fathers would have been posted. But they weren’t.

God Bless You House, Topper

 

[spina1953]

The text of House’s quote continues

House - about six weeks ago, this exact same cut and paste was posted in the “When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?” thread. My response was as follows:

Again I said: I wanted to find out whether these Fathers actually supported the Protestant concept of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA).

Interestingly, our resident Professor of Church History Dr. Edwin (currently swimming somewhere in the Tiber) then posted the following in response to this particular comment:

That makes perfect sense. IF those quotes supported Luther’s radical never before taught doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, we Catholic Apologists would dealing with them daily. Instead, the only times I have ever seen them in this fashion they have come from the same source. Other than this source I have never seen any of these quotes used to substantiate Luther’s position. But then again, we didn’t see them support his position here either did we.

I would suggest that IF these Father’s quotes actually DID support Protestant teaching on Salvation, the ACTUAL QUOTES of ALL of these Fathers would have been posted. But they weren’t.

God Bless You House, Topper

Hi Topper: Great post! It seems to me that in general that some if not most protestants like to pick and choose, that is cherry pick what verses they think comes closest to their way of thinking. Yet, when those verses are taken into context they no longer fit the argument they make that what they say is correct or true.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response.

I don’t know about the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’, since Lutheranism is not my area of expertise, but the Lutherans’ use of the Creeds suggests that they have been claiming the title ‘Catholic’ since the sixteenth century.

Given that you also ‘use’ the word “Catholic” to refer to your communion, it appears that you have a ‘dog in this hunt’.

Are we to believe that anybody who holds to the Creeds should be called “Catholic”? That seems like a pretty ‘watered down’ version of the term in my book. In addition, that would mean that any sect or heretical group can refer to themselves as members of the Only, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which pretty much eliminates the importance of excommunication.

According to the Catholic Church, a person who is excommunicated is no longer allowed the authority of the Catholic Church to teach and to administer the Sacraments. Of course, as we have seen here on this thread though, those people who were excommunicated can CLAIM that they still have teaching authority, and that they have the right to administer the Sacraments, and that they can legitimately claim the title “Catholic”.

Your position of course is that they can do all of those things.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

It’s good to see you again.

You don’t have enough time to examine the evidence, but you have enough time to reflexively dismiss it with provision that you don’t have enough time.

I have to admit, tis a curious debating strategy.

To be honest, I am much more ‘perplexed’ by your post than I am by Annie’s honest admission that she doesn’t have the time to research the quotes that House posted. Do you really think that she is ‘required’ to do that research before she responds to that post? After all, Ben, it was not Annie who introduced that quote into our discussion, was it? In my opinion, if anyone would be responsible for doing that research, that would be House. After all, it should be his responsibility to check out the quotes that he was introducing into the dialogue (as supporting his and Luther’s position).

If you will remember, on June 4th, on the old “When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?” thread (post number 48), you cut and pasted the exact same passage from Fitzmeyer that House posted yesterday.

I then posted exactly what I just posted tonight and Edwin added his (professional PhD Church Historian) opinion that those quotes do not support Luther’s position.

And now you criticize Annie because she didn’t feel like taking the time to research all of those quotes? Did YOU research them in June before you posted them or did you simply ‘trust’ that source as being fair? You didn’t.

Why didn’t you include in your post that you knew that those quotes don’t support Luther’s version of Salvation?

You probably think differently, but I have decided which was the more ‘curious debate strategies’. Honestly Ben, I’m surprised.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Novo,

Finally, if I had a bit more time on my hands, and was talking to someone both friendly and theologically literate, I’d be quite happy to discuss what ‘Catholic’ might and ought to refer to.

Luther would be proud. I do though that think you should cut me a little slack. After all, I am ‘only’ a Catholic and so I can’t be expected to be ‘theologically literate’. If I were I would be a Protestant – right?

Topper

 

[Annie39]

Hi Ben,

It’s good to see you again.

To be honest, I am much more ‘perplexed’ by your post than I am by Annie’s honest admission that she doesn’t have the time to research the quotes that House posted. Do you really think that she is ‘required’ to do that research before she responds to that post? After all, Ben, it was not Annie who introduced that quote into our discussion, was it? In my opinion, if anyone would be responsible for doing that research, that would be House. After all, it should be his responsibility to check out the quotes that he was introducing into the dialogue (as supporting his and Luther’s position).

If you will remember, on June 4th, on the old “When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?” thread (post number 48), you cut and pasted the exact same passage from Fitzmeyer that House posted yesterday.

I then posted exactly what I just posted tonight and Edwin added his (professional PhD Church Historian) opinion that those quotes do not support Luther’s position.

And now you criticize Annie because she didn’t feel like taking the time to research all of those quotes? Did YOU research them in June before you posted them or did you simply ‘trust’ that source as being fair? You didn’t.

Why didn’t you include in your post that you knew that those quotes don’t support Luther’s version of Salvation?

You probably think differently, but I have decided which was the more ‘curious debate strategies’. Honestly Ben, I’m surprised.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

Thanks Topper.