Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Topper: As you most likely already know it appears that most Lutheran’s are going to defend Luther no matter what since it was he who started their church. Now there seems to be a factured church since at least here in the USA they are not in union with many of the things that have been accepted in some of their churches. It also seems that not all Lutheran’s agree with all of the confessions and concord, so do while others only agree with some of it, but so far it seems if I understand it these confession cannot be change though I might be wrong about that. #39 I think is a real problem since till that changes, I do not see a reunion. I think it offensive to Catholic’s, But I do understand that it was written in the 1500’s and may not apply in our day and age, yet, at least one thinks it true so I wonder at it all.

Does that mean that Catholics are offended by Benedict when he made this statement?

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical Dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

And that Catholics are offended by the Vatican theologians/ scholars and U.S. Bishops where they wrote this?

1. A step in this direction was taken by Vatican II, which permitted limited Eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox,122 even though the latter do not normally accept (and even at times explicitly reject at least one or more of) the dogmas in question. The situation of the Orthodox and Lutherans, though different in many ways, is similar at least in the following: both find themselves for the most part unable to accept one or more of these teachings as part of the deposit of faith. If this inability on the part of the Orthodox does not preclude all Eucharistic sharing with Catholics, the same inability on the part of Lutherans should not of itself do so either. Lack of Christian faith would and should so preclude.

.”301 Particularly in praise and adoration of God at the Lord’s table, the apparent division marked
by death melts away. Lutherans and Catholics can together affirm what the Lutherans said in an
earlier round of this dialogue that:
[F]aith does not mean individualism, but rather a being born anew into the
communion of believers, the body of Christ which is the church. As members of the church,
believers participate by grace in the divine Trinitarian life—in a “mystical union” (unio
mystica) that anticipates the full future glory of Christ “beheld with an unveiled face” (2 Cor.
3:18; cf. 5:1-10 and Rom. 8:20-30 in the context of 8:18-39).302

1. The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s
   Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.
   The Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue on the Eucharist was able to
   state: »The Lutheran tradition affirms the Catholic tradition that the
   consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but rather
   by the power of the creative word are given as the body and blood of
   Christ. In this sense Lutherans also could occasionally speak, as does
   the Greek tradition, of a change« (Eucharist 51).50 Both Catholics and
   Lutherans »have in common a rejection of a spatial or natural manner
   of presence, and a rejection of an understanding of the sacrament as
   only commemorative or figurative« (Eucharist 16).51
   Common

I’ve noticed spina that you don’t often respond to direct questions and hope you will enlightening us with your insight. You do encourage other Catholics. I wonder if they are comfortable with your comments as well as Topper’s position on the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[joe371]

This is a beautiful affirmation of Christ’s Real Presence

 

[guanophore]

Does that mean that Catholics are offended by Benedict when he made this statement?

I think most Catholics have never read it/heard it, and if they have, probably don’t understand what he meant.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think most Catholics have never read it/heard it, and if they have, probably don’t understand what he meant.

I think you are right. But when understood, is it not dishonest to ignore the truth?

 

[guanophore]

I think you are right. But when understood, is it not dishonest to ignore the truth?

At the least, dishonest, for some it is a deliberate wound to unity caused by prejudice, ignorance, bigotry, etc.

That being said, your perception of this “truth” might also be substantially different than what Ratzinger meant when he wrote it.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

At the least, dishonest, for some it is a deliberate wound to unity caused by prejudice, ignorance, bigotry, etc.

**That being said, your perception of this “truth” might also be substantially different than what Ratzinger meant when he wrote it. **

Agree but this quote was taken from the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue as a defense of the theological consensus on the Real Presence which was favorably elaborated on.

 

[spina1953]

Does that mean that Catholics are offended by Benedict when he made this statement?

And that Catholics are offended by the Vatican theologians/ scholars and U.S. Bishops where they wrote this?

I’ve noticed spina that you don’t often respond to direct questions and hope you will enlightening us with your insight. You do encourage other Catholics. I wonder if they are comfortable with your comments as well as Topper’s position on the Roman Catholic Church?

Hi Evangel Catholic: I am not sure what you are getting at with the “are Catholic’s offended by Benedict when he made this statement?” It really does not have anything to do with #39 of the confessions. IMHO. Nor of the Bishops Vatican Theologians statements. I think many Catholic’s would be offended by #39 of the confession, just as I believe there are many Lutheran’s as well as many Protestant’s of different denomination who do not like what some of the pastors agree to that really is not in Scripture, but be as that may, I am trying to answer you question you asked me. My answers and my thoughts that I post are just my opinions and if I have a direct quote from someone I try to give who said it so that no one will think it was my thoughts when it is someone else’s thanks and peace to you.

I do not know if they are comfortable with my comments or not or of Topper’s. I respond to what I think of what is said. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not. I really have nothing against anyone on CAF and I am learning much. That being said, It is opinions that is being given by posters as I will assume at this point that none are theologians or have a degree in theology, yet the opinions have helped all of us to see how others think about what is being debated on these threads. I believe people are free to believe what they want and it is not position to make others believe or think differently since it is by choice not by force. One can accept or not what is said or posted. thanks again.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Evangel Catholic: I am not sure what you are getting at with the “are Catholic’s offended by Benedict when he made this statement?” It really does not have anything to do with #39 of the confessions. IMHO. Nor of the Bishops Vatican Theologians statements. I think many Catholic’s would be offended by #39 of the confession, just as I believe there are many Lutheran’s as well as many Protestant’s of different denomination who do not like what some of the pastors agree to that really is not in Scripture, but be as that may, I am trying to answer you question you asked me. My answers and my thoughts that I post are just my opinions and if I have a direct quote from someone I try to give who said it so that no one will think it was my thoughts when it is someone else’s thanks and peace to you.

I do not know if they are comfortable with my comments or not or of Topper’s. I respond to what I think of what is said. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not. I really have nothing against anyone on CAF and I am learning much. That being said, It is opinions that is being given by posters as I will assume at this point that none are theologians or have a degree in theology, yet the opinions have helped all of us to see how others think about what is being debated on these threads. I believe people are free to believe what they want and it is not position to make others believe or think differently since it is by choice not by force. One can accept or not what is said or posted. thanks again.

I appreciate your reply and basically agree with you regarding individual opinion against what the Church has decided. Some Lutherans/ Anglicans strongly disagree with the Church over female ordinations and don’t hesitate to express that opinion. If some Catholics are uncomfortable * with the ecumenical direction of the Vatican, it is certainly worth discussing. Perhaps a thread on the subject of post Vatican 2 development and mutual Catholic and Lutheran declarations on doctrine would be helpful.

For example, I still hear on occasion some who express regrets over the changes that Pope John 23 initiated such as the Mass in the vernacular, moving the tabernacle away from the altar, communion in both kinds, etc.*

 

[Annie39]

EvangelCatholic

The statement that you quote:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”-- Cardinal Ratizinger in a letter to Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann.

Was written by Cardinal Ratizinger not by Pope Benedict VVI. It makes a difference. There is probably someone who is a Cardinal now or maybe only a Priest who will one day be Pope. Nothing he says now will be considered infallible unless he states something that is already part of the deposit of faith. Cardinal Ratizinger was very much a supporter of ecumenism and he remained such after he became Pope. Please note that even though he was most enthusiastic about the Lutherans he is acknowledging that the Lutheran communion is not valid and that Lutherans are not in succession like the Orthodox and the Catholics. I don’t know how the Lutheran “Lord Supper” can be salvation-granting and would someday like to discuss that topic with someone in the know. I don’t mean some self-ordained theologian however.

When I was living in southern CA one of my Lutheran friends moved to northern CA. She and her husband visited us for a couple of days. At that time she told me that her son who was married to a Catholic had been receiving the Catholic Eucharist he was Lutheran. I let her know that I was very sad to learn this that he is not welcome to do so. This did not set all that well with her. So I asked her the following question, if my son dropped in on us but did not knock on the door and after greeting she and her hubby went into our kitchen and proceeded to make himself a sandwich would that surprise her or would she just assume that my son, even though he lived a couple miles away still has kitchen privileges in our home. Now, I asked her, what if her son who lives quite a distance from them and from us was coincidentally visiting friends in our city when he heard that she and his dad were visiting us and since he hadn’t seen them in a while decided to drop by to say hi. Would she, I asked, have been surprised if that young man opened our door without knocking and after greeting everyone proceeded into the kitchen to prepare a sandwich for himself?

I am hoping that those who are not Catholic do not receive the Eucharist. I invite those people to come home to the Catholic Church.

Annie

 

[spina1953]

I appreciate your reply and basically agree with you regarding individual opinion against what the Church has decided. Some Lutherans/ Anglicans strongly disagree with the Church over female ordinations and don’t hesitate to express that opinion. If some Catholics are uncomfortable * with the ecumenical direction of the Vatican, it is certainly worth discussing. Perhaps a thread on the subject of post Vatican 2 development and mutual Catholic and Lutheran declarations on doctrine would be helpful.

For example, I still hear on occasion some who express regrets over the changes that Pope John 23 initiated such as the Mass in the vernacular, moving the tabernacle away from the altar, communion in both kinds, etc.*

Hi Evangel Catholic: Thanks so much for your reply. As a lay Catholic I can not speak for the Catholic Church, but I can speak of what I think I understand as what the Catholic Church teaches. I agree with you that there are those who will disagree with what their Church says or teaches, whether Catholic or non-Catholic. yes, it is true that there are some Catholic’s who are uncomfortable with direction that Vatican II took, as well as Vatican I. and yes, it is well worth discussing and maybe a thread on the subject might be helpful on it. Mutual Catholic and Lutheran declarations on doctrines would be helpful also in trying to get a better understanding of our various differences.

I also have heard that there are some Catholic’s who regret over the communion of both kinds but have not heard anything about moving the Tabernacle away from the Altar. As for saying the Mass in the Vernacular instead of in Latin Personal while I remember when it was all in Latin and like it very much I also think that being able to say the Mass in a language people can understand is very important since those attending should take part in the Mass as a way of coming closer to God through Christ. I know that there are those who think that the Mass has to be in Latin and while some Bishops have said some of the Churches can say the Mass in Latin it is to those where there is enough attending. The Latin mass is not said in every Church as many do not want it said in Latin and are used to hearing it there own language.
One thing I like about being on these forums at CAF is learning about others of different faiths and the reasons as to why there believe as they do, but I do not want to argue with anyone nor force anyone to change their personal beliefs, but only inform others as to what I believe and understand and ask questions when needed. thanks and peace.

 

[spina1953]

EvangelCatholic

The statement that you quote:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”-- Cardinal Ratizinger in a letter to Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann.

Was written by Cardinal Ratizinger not by Pope Benedict VVI. It makes a difference. There is probably someone who is a Cardinal now or maybe only a Priest who will one day be Pope. Nothing he says now will be considered infallible unless he states something that is already part of the deposit of faith. Cardinal Ratizinger was very much a supporter of ecumenism and he remained such after he became Pope. Please note that even though he was most enthusiastic about the Lutherans he is acknowledging that the Lutheran communion is not valid and that Lutherans are not in succession like the Orthodox and the Catholics. I don’t know how the Lutheran “Lord Supper” can be salvation-granting and would someday like to discuss that topic with someone in the know. I don’t mean some self-ordained theologian however.

When I was living in southern CA one of my Lutheran friends moved to northern CA. She and her husband visited us for a couple of days. At that time she told me that her son who was married to a Catholic had been receiving the Catholic Eucharist he was Lutheran. I let her know that I was very sad to learn this that he is not welcome to do so. This did not set all that well with her. So I asked her the following question, if my son dropped in on us but did not knock on the door and after greeting she and her hubby went into our kitchen and proceeded to make himself a sandwich would that surprise her or would she just assume that my son, even though he lived a couple miles away still has kitchen privileges in our home. Now, I asked her, what if her son who lives quite a distance from them and from us was coincidentally visiting friends in our city when he heard that she and his dad were visiting us and since he hadn’t seen them in a while decided to drop by to say hi. Would she, I asked, have been surprised if that young man opened our door without knocking and after greeting everyone proceeded into the kitchen to prepare a sandwich for himself?

I am hoping that those who are not Catholic do not receive the Eucharist. I invite those people to come home to the Catholic Church.

Annie

Hi Annie 39: I have to agree with you concerning your statements. I remember that we have in the parish I was in in southern AZ town a Lutheran was receiving Communion that the priest there knew he was a Lutheran. At some point the Bishop heard about it and told the priest that that he was not to give Communion to the Lutheran since he was not in union with the Catholic Church.

I do understand that Lutheran’s and Catholic’s have some things that we agree, there are many other issues that we do not agree on, and till that is resolved, there is no union between the two Churches. Keep up the good work you are doing.

 

[marywarfield]

It is clear. There are basic teachings about the power and primacy of the pope that we consider opposed to Christ. It is also a fact that we do not consider any individual pope, personally, as THE Antichrist.
Further, every part of that statement has in it a the recognition that a change in those teachings, indeed a reconciliation regarding them between us, would bring to an end the condemnation, just exactly in the same way that Trent’s anathemas can be lifted if we cease to continue in our “errors”.

Its ugly, and nasty, and I wish the wording were different, considering the dramatic changes that have occurred between our communions since Vat. II. It is historically conditional, and it does not stand in the way of, or even exclude the fact that, the there is a recognition within Lutheranism that the pope has, among all of the bishops, a primacy, granted to him in the early Church, and that he has the authority recognized in bishops within his see.

And again, The Catholic Church leadership in Rome, including popes from John XXIII to Francis, have participated in efforts to improve the relationship between our communions, despite the harsh condemnations of the past, on both sides. I thank God for that, and join in Pope Benedict’s statement, which he expressed in a Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010, that unity can only come from God, and I hope the Spirit continues to work for that unity.

Jon

Yes. You make two excellent points.

1. I TOTALLY agree with your view that Lutheran confessions
   concerning the Papacy ARE ugly and nasty. Perhaps
   one again should take into consideration what the
   actual Holy Spirit is all about. Ugly and nasty? Never.
   The Holy Spirit cannot be ugly and nasty therefore
   what spirit put forth the Confession?
   If it was not the Holy Spirit then the entire confession
   is evil and false and should be renounced.

1. I totally agree it is wonderful Pope Benedict XVI
   was open to reconciliation. Especially with those who
   consider his very existence to be evidence of
   anti Christ activity. Again if I look at what the Holy
   Spirit actually is I am extraordinarily impressed with
   the Pope’s humility and charity and horrified at the
   pride exhibited by those he is attempting to reconcile with.

 

[spina1953]

Yes. You make two excellent points.

1. I TOTALLY agree with your view that Lutheran confessions
   concerning the Papacy ARE ugly and nasty. Perhaps
   one again should take into consideration what the
   actual Holy Spirit is all about. Ugly and nasty? Never.
   The Holy Spirit cannot be ugly and nasty therefore
   what spirit put forth the Confession?
   If it was not the Holy Spirit then the entire confession
   is evil and false and should be renounced.

1. I totally agree it is wonderful Pope Benedict XVI
   was open to reconciliation. Especially with those who
   consider his very existence to be evidence of
   anti Christ activity. Again if I look at what the Holy
   Spirit actually is I am extraordinarily impressed with
   the Pope’s humility and charity and horrified at the
   pride exhibited by those he is attempting to reconcile with.

Hi mary warfield: Very well said!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

EvangelCatholic

The statement that you quote:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”-- Cardinal Ratizinger in a letter to Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann.

Was written by Cardinal Ratizinger not by Pope Benedict VVI. It makes a difference. There is probably someone who is a Cardinal now or maybe only a Priest who will one day be Pope. Nothing he says now will be considered infallible unless he states something that is already part of the deposit of faith. Cardinal Ratizinger was very much a supporter of ecumenism and he remained such after he became Pope. Please note that even though he was most enthusiastic about the Lutherans he is acknowledging that the Lutheran communion is not valid and that Lutherans are not in succession like the Orthodox and the Catholics. I don’t know how the Lutheran “Lord Supper” can be salvation-granting and would someday like to discuss that topic with someone in the know. I don’t mean some self-ordained theologian however.

You are correct that at the time Benedict wrote to the Lutheran bishop he was not yet the Pope. But Ratizinger was the Prefect and as such was intimately involved in doctrine and ecumenical efforts; please note:

In 1981, he settled in Rome when he became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the most important dicasteries of the Roman Curia. From 2002 until his election as pope, he was also Dean of the College of Cardinals, and as such, the primus inter pares among the cardinals. Prior to becoming pope, he was “a major figure on the Vatican stage for a quarter of a century”; he had an influence “second to none when it came to setting church priorities and directions” as one of John Paul II’s closest confidants.[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

When I was living in southern CA one of my Lutheran friends moved to northern CA. She and her husband visited us for a couple of days. At that time she told me that her son who was married to a Catholic had been receiving the Catholic Eucharist he was Lutheran. I let her know that I was very sad to learn this that he is not welcome to do so. This did not set all that well with her. So I asked her the following question, if my son dropped in on us but did not knock on the door and after greeting she and her hubby went into our kitchen and proceeded to make himself a sandwich would that surprise her or would she just assume that my son, even though he lived a couple miles away still has kitchen privileges in our home. Now, I asked her, what if her son who lives quite a distance from them and from us was coincidentally visiting friends in our city when he heard that she and his dad were visiting us and since he hadn’t seen them in a while decided to drop by to say hi. Would she, I asked, have been surprised if that young man opened our door without knocking and after greeting everyone proceeded into the kitchen to prepare a sandwich for himself?

I am hoping that those who are not Catholic do not receive the Eucharist. I invite those people to come home to the Catholic Church.

Annie

There are provisions for non-Catholics to receive the sacraments in the Catholic Church. If you like I can post the document from the Diocese of Long Island, New York.

We have 2 daughter-in-laws who are Catholic and commune in my Lutheran parish. Likewise, I have been invited and accept holy Communion from Catholic priests when we have family celebrations baptisms, confirmation, weddings, etc. Have you ever attended Mass in Catholic religious communities?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response.

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.

I would guess it is quite late. Lutheran Professor Kittelson didn’t mention Evangelical Catholics (capitol ‘C’) in his 2003 article. What I objected to specifically was the claim that EC (capitol “C”) was ‘historic’. So far I think we have evidence that it was used as ‘early’ as 2010. How much older it goes is yet to be seen.

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.

‘catholic and evangelical’ is not objectionable. The capitol “C” however is, and the claim that it is historic appears to be false. I am willing to be proven wrong but until then, it cannot be justified from ‘history’.

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.

We use the English language here at CA. Right?

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.

OK, this then would seem to necessitate a formulation as to who, specifically and exactly, ‘decides’ what the ‘criteria of catholocity’ are to be. For the first 1000 years there was absolutely no question. Are you suggesting that, now, anybody who wants to can decide for themselves?

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.

I think you would like Kittelson, a Lutheran. MacCulloch is also a favorite of mine. I consider his tome “The Reformation, a History” to be one of the better one volume histories of the period.

As to your comment about ‘too romantic’, I would agree. From my perspective, if we are ever going to achieve a meaningful unity, it must begin with realistically dealing with the issues that separate us rather than just sweeping them under the rug.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

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 .

I agree. While it is only the fringe which claims anything like “just the Bible and me”, all Protestant groups practice some form of SS + “Something”. That “Something” is whatever they decide it should be and if that thing doesn’t exist, then they simply have a meeting of a bunch of people and then they write that ‘Something’, and then consider it ‘authoritative’ or something. This as IF that group which met should somehow be viewed as having ‘done it better’ than all of those competing groups who are out there doing the exact same thing.

It’s no wonder that Protestantism is so chock full of doctrinal disunity and confusion.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes. You make two excellent points.

LTNS!

 

[marywarfield]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I agree. While it is only the fringe which claims anything like “just the Bible and me”, all Protestant groups practice some form of SS + “Something”. That “Something” is whatever they decide it should be and if that thing doesn’t exist, then they simply have a meeting of a bunch of people and then they write that ‘Something’, and then consider it ‘authoritative’ or something. This as IF that group which met should somehow be viewed as having ‘done it better’ than all of those competing groups who are out there doing the exact same thing.

It’s no wonder that Protestantism is so chock full of doctrinal disunity and confusion.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

But again Topper that tendency of the Protestants is
directly due to the twisted view of Luther towards
Church authority. Consider the Church has historical and
traditional views of Scripture she defends. How many
times have you heard a self interpreting Protestant
say “But Catholics don’t read the Bible. Their priests
tell them what it means.”

This is simply the old propaganda first perpetrated
by Luther.

Unfortunately rarely do they realize they are actually doing
what they accuse Catholics of. Ever try disagreeing with
a Protestant minister on Bible interpretation?
Not allowed

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I agree. While it is only the fringe which claims anything like “just the Bible and me”, all Protestant groups practice some form of SS + “Something”. That “Something” is whatever they decide it should be and if that thing doesn’t exist, then they simply have a meeting of a bunch of people and then they write that ‘Something’, and then consider it ‘authoritative’ or something. This as IF that group which met should somehow be viewed as having ‘done it better’ than all of those competing groups who are out there doing the exact same thing.

It’s no wonder that Protestantism is so chock full of doctrinal disunity and confusion.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: I agree that some form of SS seems to be practiced by protestant groups. From what many of the Protestant posters say and from which I gather from it, it appears or seems to me to be a lot of different ideas of SS means. One say it is one way and another says it is a different way, kinda of confusing to me to say the least. In one way I understand that Scripture has authority as God’s Word to man, but it is neither self interpreting nor is it the final authority since while the Apostles did use the OT, none the less the teaching they preached were the teaching of Jesus Christ and there was not NT which is what we as Christians base our beliefs on. If we call ourselves Christians then what we are then saying is that we are following the teaching of Jesus the Christ, and Christ is the fulfillment of the OT.

              In reading the fathers of the early Catholic Church, as well as the Doctors of the Church I do not see anywhere where SS is thought to hold any such authority as so many seem to think. The problem as I see it is that whenever I look in the yellow pages on Churches, so many claim to be Bible only, each having their own interpretation different from the others. others say they are Bible based as though other churches are not.

              Then you have Churches where anti-Catholic is preached or anti Jew is preached. One think I have thought over the years is that the Bible can be made to be whatever one wants it to be and its due to personal interpretation where one gets some idea into one's head and then looks for whatever verses that seem to fit their preconceived ideas. others say that the Bible is self interpreting. Others decide what it to be taken literally and what is not, picking and choosing those verses that fit what they want people to accept. I know that whenever those who come to the door and ask if I am saved and start with different verses or start with do you read the Bible and quote verses that are one liners that then weave this big story about what it means, having taken it out of context and I point that out they look at funny and say I do not know I am talking about and that I obviously have not read the Bible. Guess it was not what they wanted to hear but that's my take on it.

 

[spina1953]

But again Topper that tendency of the Protestants is
directly due to the twisted view of Luther towards
Church authority. Consider the Church has historical and
traditional views of Scripture she defends. How many
times have you heard a self interpreting Protestant
say “But Catholics don’t read the Bible. Their priests
tell them what it means.”

This is simply the old propaganda first perpetrated
by Luther.

Unfortunately rarely do they realize they are actually doing
what they accuse Catholics of. Ever try disagreeing with
a Protestant minister on Bible interpretation?
Not allowed

Hi marywarfield: I remember talking to a person who was a Protestant and was told that the Catholic Church chained the Bible so that no one could read it. I told that person that 1) the reason why Bibles were chained in catholic Churches was so that they would not be stolen 2) most people at that time could neither read nor write. 3) Bible being copied by hand often took years to produce and so were extremely expensive and few people could afford to own a Bible let alone a book. That person was not swayed and in the end did not believe. These are just propaganda that so many protestants believe because they were taught that. Just as those propaganda that Luther perpetrated are still believed by those who are taught it.