Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Annie39]

Of course not.

Who then interprets the Scriptures and Tradition?

Annie

 

[Annie39]

I don’t think Luther did, but I’m not willing to claim to be a Luther expert.

My definition is based on the liturgy and doctrinal formularies of the Church of England:

I’d also be willing to accept the position offered here by Cyril of Jerusalem, although I fully respect that the likely Roman Catholic response will be to say that individual Fathers occasionally err, etc.

Your definition therefore is from your tradition (The Church of England) and has no more authority as another definition. It’s your decision to accept this definition. It does not come from scripture. How does one learn objective truth like this?

As for Cyril of Jerusalem, he meant that the Scriptures were materially sufficient. Here is another quote showing that he had a high opinion of Scripture but as interpreted by the Church. Not Luther and , or Henry VIII or Calvin or Zwingli or Ellen White or….

Cyril opens section 12 of Lecture 5 with the statement: "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Well, of course. It is a practice of our Church, not a practice of mine. If it were a practice of mine, I wouldn’t need to use the confessions.

Jon

So you have to take there word for it that what they write is true. There was no sign from God giving them this authority, right? No miracles, no word from on high like “this is My beloved minister listen to him” nothing at all?

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Your definition therefore is from your tradition (The Church of England) and has no more authority as another definition. It’s your decision to accept this definition. It does not come from scripture. How does one learn objective truth like this?

I accept it because it seems to me to reflect the the practice of the early Church, and is consistent with Scripture.

As for Cyril of Jerusalem, he meant that the Scriptures were materially sufficient. Here is another quote showing that he had a high opinion of Scripture but as interpreted by the Church. Not Luther and , or Henry VIII or Calvin or Zwingli or Ellen White or….

And I don’t think *sola scriptura *is too far away from Cyril’s understanding of material sufficiency.

Cyril opens section 12 of Lecture 5 with the statement: "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures

I’d agree with him. I was taught the Faith by the Church.

 

[Annie39]

I accept it because it seems to me to reflect the the practice of the early Church, and is consistent with Scripture.

And I don’t think *sola scriptura *is too far away from Cyril’s understanding of material sufficiency.

I’d agree with him. I was taught the Faith by the Church.

No. Cyril was Catholic. Henry or Elizabeth would have disapproved and you know what happened to folks they disapproved of. You are in the wrong Church. I pray that you will one day come home to Rome.

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Cyril was Catholic.

He sure was, but I bet he didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome.

Henry or Elizabeth would have disapproved and you know what happened to folks they disapproved of.

I don’t think I’m required to be an apologist for Tudor government. I’ll just point out that sixteenth century Roman Catholic governments weren’t great examples of religious freedom either.

You are in the wrong Church. I pray that you will one day come home to Rome.

I am, to my knowledge, in the only Church, by virtue of my baptism.

 

[spina1953]

In 1520 a pope was teaching that it is NOT against the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics at the stake.

Is that a true or a false teaching?

After reading Exsarge Domine 1520 I found that the CC ;the Popes Bull is saying that #33 is just one of the errors that the CC considers to be a pernicious poison, which is to say that the CC condemns the false teaching that it is not against the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretic’s at the stake, meaning that it is not ok to say that the Holy Spirit wills that heretic’s be burned at the stake. This was a teaching of Wyclift from what it was saying.

 

[spina1953]

In Exsurge Domine (1520), the Pope condemns Luther’s teaching (=doctrine) that it was against the Holy Spirit’s will to burn heretics.

I believe I think I responded to you and not to whom I wanted to, sorry about that and you are correct to say what you said in your post. I apologize for my mistake.

 

[Topper17]

Novo,

You did, in fact, receive the reply that Lutherans have been claiming catholicity since the reformation by the use of the creeds. I don’t think you can just ignore that, though I know you’re doing your best.

Somehow you missed my point.

Jon made the claim that the Lutheran use of the term “Evangelical Catholic” is ‘historic’. I doubt that and called for evidence to that effect. As you know, it is the capitalization of the “C” that is a misappropriation is the most offensive. If the EC’s want to defend the use of this term by claiming that it is something that Lutherans have used historically, then they should be able to document that usage. Annie and I have been asking for some time now for some kind of evidence to that effect, and it appears that there is none. Therefore, the justification that was used to legitimize that use, is apparently false.

In addition, I would suggest that just because a certain sect uses the creeds, does NOT mean that they should be allowed to use the name of the Mother Church that excommunicated them for heresy.

Aside from your snarky comments, I feel it necessary to point out that you failed to comment on the Kittelson quote, preferring to criticize me instead. Like I said before, Luther would be proud.

Topper

 

[spina1953]

Article 33 is a frequent topic for musing and assertions here.

GKC

Hi GKC: I agree since there were Protestants who burned those they thought were heretic’s, not just Catholic secular’s or civil authorities.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

After reading Exsarge Domine 1520 I found that the CC ;the Popes Bull is saying that #33 is just one of the errors that the CC considers to be a pernicious poison, which is to say that the CC condemns the false teaching that it is not against the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretic’s at the stake, meaning that it is not ok to say that the Holy Spirit wills that heretic’s be burned at the stake. This was a teaching of Wyclift from what it was saying.

That interpretation doesn’t make any sense in light of the other condemnations. No, Luther was arguing that burning heretics IS against the will of the HS. The pope disagreed.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper

I am very grateful for all the time that you have taken on this topic. Can you imagine that I was told by more than one person that since I didn’t read the Confessions I was not properly catechized in the Lutheran Church? I’m completely amazed.

You ask Edwin “Do you think it is even possible that Lutherans could ever retract or rewrite those offensive statements in their Confessions?" I am not a Professor of Church History but I would like to comment as an ex-Lutheran. It is my wish; my prayer that that the Lutherans disavow and jettison this horrible book. I don’t see any hope of their return home to Rome unless they do. I said it before and I’ll say it again I now know why I was not asked to read the Confessions by the Lutheran Pastors I have known. Almost all of those men were kind and worked hard at their occupation. One of those men I sincerely believe was on his way to the Catholic Church I have lost contact with him so I don’t know if he made it home. On my way into the Lutheran Church the Pastor gave a bible study concentrating on the Lutheran interpretation of same.

I was thinking about ordering the Confessions today to see what may have kept me in the Lutheran Church if I were just catechized properly. I must thank you once again this time for saving me money.

Annie

Hi Annie,

Thanks for your kind words. As for the Lutheran Confessions, they are all available on line so you don’t have to spend the money to buy a hard copy.

The implication of what we have been hearing is that IF you had been properly catechized, you would have remained a Lutheran.

It seems to me that every time someone describes their experiences in their (former) Lutheran church, they are told that that experience is not representative of Lutheranism. Apparently the three LCMS churches that you attended and the pastors you knew personally were not really characteristic of Lutheranism as a whole. It kind of makes you wonder, especially in light of Kittelson’s comments.

God Bless You Annie, Topper

 

[spina1953]

That interpretation doesn’t make any sense in light of the other condemnations. No, Luther was arguing that burning heretics IS against the will of the HS. The pope disagreed.

It has nothing to do with interpretation. I just read it as it stated and can find nor see that it says that Luther was saying that burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit. The Bull is saying about the Hussites and Wyclifites and Jerome of Prague and continues with"…some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document." It is not about Luther saying it was against the will of the Hol6y Spirit to burn heretic’s, but saying that the CC says that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit and it is plain as day to me as to what the bull is saying. If there is any misinterpretation it is you I am sorry to say, so I think you might give some thought to what it actually says.

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: I agree since there were Protestants who burned those they thought were heretic’s, not just Catholic secular’s or civil authorities.

No doubt about it.

The lengthy discussions on the board were about what the Pope meant.

Opinions varied.

GKC

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

We don’t believe in ‘scripture alone’ as per the modern definition of ‘me and my bible’- we have creeds, hymns, liturgy, church fathers and the other authorities. The ‘true’ definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture norms the other norms as a practice of the church.

Frankly, we’re just about as baffled with the ‘me and my bible’ idea as Catholics are.

As I have pointed out in many posts, nobody really practices ‘Scripture Alone’ not even those who literally use ONLY the Bible as their source of information. Everybody ‘adds something’ to Scripture. Lutherans add among other things - their Confessions. Various other communions add other things. But no matter what, everybody adds something - the thing of their choice. It is in the picking and the choosing that all of the doctrinal confusion and disunity comes about.

Lutherans have determined that the Lutheran Confessions should be seen as being authoritative. I have been asking for years why Lutherans believe this but have gotten far more criticism for asking the question than anything else. Could you help me understand why Lutherans place so much credibility on those 16th century Theologians and politicians?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[spina1953]

No doubt about it.

The lengthy discussions on the board were about what the Pope meant.

Opinions varied.

GKC

True enough. Opinions do vary much as you so rightly state.

 

[Novocastrian]

Jon made the claim that the Lutheran use of the term “Evangelical Catholic” is ‘historic’. I doubt that and called for evidence to that effect. As you know, it is the capitalization of the “C” that is a misappropriation is the most offensive.

Well these are two different things. On the one hand you’re complaining about the use of ‘Evangelical Catholic’ as a proper noun, on the other you’re complaining about the ‘misappropriation’ of Catholicity. I responded, as I thought I made clear, to the latter point, and not to the former.

If the EC’s want to defend the use of this term by claiming that it is something that Lutherans have used historically, then they should be able to document that usage. Annie and I have been asking for some time now for some kind of evidence to that effect, and it appears that there is none. Therefore, the justification that was used to legitimize that use, is apparently false.

I’m unaware of its first use as a proper noun. Given the German churches’ tendency to describe themselves primarily in geographic terms (cuius regio, etc.), I’d guess that that could be quite late. The concept, however, beyond the implicit claims of the creed etc., I can point to in the seventeenth century, at least.

Johann Gerhard’s (1630s) Confessio catholica, in qua doctrina catholica et evangelica, quam ecclesiae Augustanae confessioni addictae profilentur, ex Romano-catholicorum scriptorum suffragiis confirmatur would seem to fit the bill. It identifies the Church of the Augsburg Confession as catholic and evangelical in doctrine.

Capital letters - to which you keep referring - are, of course, of varying significance in different languages. Lots in German, some in English, relatively few in Latin. I’m not enough of a seventeenth-century Latinist to tell you if the capitalisations, or lack thereof, in the above title are of linguistic or theological significance.

In addition, I would suggest that just because a certain sect uses the creeds, does NOT mean that they should be allowed to use the name of the Mother Church that excommunicated them for heresy.

Of course. I’m no relativist. Only catholics are catholic, only the orthodox are orthodox; we merely disagree on the criteria of catholicity, etc., and Rome’s authority to call those particular shots.

Aside from your snarky comments, I feel it necessary to point out that you failed to comment on the Kittelson quote, preferring to criticize me instead. Like I said before, Luther would be proud.

I don’t know Kittelson or his work, and certainly not enough about post-Reformation Lutheranism to offer an informed opinion. He sounds though, in this respect, similar to the great Professor MacCulloch, whose work on the English Reformation I by and large agree with. Nineteenth and twentieth century ecumenicising/catholicising movements often have far too romantic a notion of their own, and Rome’s, past.

 

[Novocastrian]

As I have pointed out in many posts, nobody really practices ‘Scripture Alone’ not even those who literally use ONLY the Bible as their source of information. Everybody ‘adds something’ to Scripture.

You’re certainly right that there are very few who practice what you imagine sola scriptura to mean.

For the record, I’m not married to the term; I think there are better ways of articulating the Church’s relationship with revelation. But it’s a stronger and more coherent term than you’re willing to recognise.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Ben,

As I have pointed out in many posts, nobody really practices ‘Scripture Alone’ not even those who literally use ONLY the Bible as their source of information. Everybody ‘adds something’ to Scripture. Lutherans add among other things - their Confessions. Various other communions add other things. But no matter what, everybody adds something - the thing of their choice. It is in the picking and the choosing that all of the doctrinal confusion and disunity comes about.

Lutherans have determined that the Lutheran Confessions should be seen as being authoritative. I have been asking for years why Lutherans believe this but have gotten far more criticism for asking the question than anything else. Could you help me understand why Lutherans place so much credibility on those 16th century Theologians and politicians?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

Hi Topper: I would like to chime in about what you said about picking and choosing and the Scriptur alone thing. I t seems to me from what I have read through the years and also from hearing the TV evangelicals and others that they get a idea into their head and then look for any and all verses they think fits the idea they already have. They then try to pawn it off as the Bible says so. This is I know not true for every Protestant, and I think it is mostly the fringe denominations as well as those I am thinking Baptists and others like fundelmendelists .

 

[Novocastrian]

The implication of what we have been hearing is that IF you had been properly catechized, you would have remained a Lutheran.

I don’t think that’s true at all. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s not what any of the Lutherans here have claimed. They’ve simply said that a reading of the Confessions gives a picture of Lutheranism different to the one the OP suggests. She may still have rejected it. Indeed, she might have had stronger grounds for rejecting it.