Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[marywarfield]

Actually, I don’t know why.

But I don’t need to. Although part of me is saddened that you don’t wish to dialogue peaceably, I am comforted with the knowledge that the goal of corporate unity is the task of our wise and patient leaders, who are tremendous dialogue partners; it is not for amateur apologists and polemicists on internet forums. More importantly, despite our inability to connect here --for some incredible and inexplicable reason-- Christ still loves the both of us

I pray God grants you peace.

Your brother in Christ,

A couple of points:
Topper has displayed remarkable charity and peaceful
dialogue with you Don and with Jon.
What Topper has done is what Topper always does:
Posted direct quotes from the worlds leading historians
and theologians and psychologists both Lutheran and
Catholic which back every assertion he has made.
He has made no ad hominems- in fact he’s taken a
very scholarly although admittedly biased approach.
And repeatedly you have accused him of being inflammatory
and uncharitable.

Obviously you are objecting to the quotes. I wonder
why? Topper didn’t write them- he merely posted them
here.
If they offend you maybe you have some soul
searching to do.

 

[Annie39]

A couple of points:
Topper has displayed remarkable charity and peaceful
dialogue with you Don and with Jon.
What Topper has done is what Topper always does:
Posted direct quotes from the worlds leading historians
and theologians and psychologists both Lutheran and
Catholic which back every assertion he has made.
He has made no ad hominems- in fact he’s taken a
very scholarly although admittedly biased approach.
And repeatedly you have accused him of being inflammatory
and uncharitable.

Obviously you are objecting to the quotes. I wonder
why? Topper didn’t write them- he merely posted them
here.
If they offend you maybe you have some soul
searching to do.

Topper reminds me of Harry S. Truman “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.

Annie

 

[marywarfield]

Topper reminds me of Harry S. Truman “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.

Annie

Exactly haha!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Stiedo,

You know for a FACT, that we will NEVER again be dialogue partners and you know specifically and exactly why.

Is that a promise?

 

[guanophore]

If the Bible states nothing about Popes being anti Christ
and Luther intended all to be Sola Scriptura as the
authority, can you explain why ANY confession
would contain the claim???

Isn’t that a contradiction?

Or is the Lutheran view that the Pope is anti Christ
coming from sacred tradition pulled out of the air by Luther instead?

Lutherans have retained a number of Sacred Traditions, and their application of the princple of SS is different than what we find in fundamentalist communities. It does not mean that there are not other sources of authority, so long as they don’t conflict with how they understand the scriptures.

It is a very good question, though. How is it this practice got started when it is not found in the Bible?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Its almost a hysteria of desperate attempts to minimize Catholic teaching by fellow Catholics. You have definite issues with the Vatican yet prefer to attack Lutherans. Confidence and compassion seem to missing from several Catholic posters. It is a loss for all of us.

 

[pablope]

Lutherans have retained a number of Sacred Traditions, and their application of the princple of SS is different than what we find in fundamentalist communities. It does not mean that there are not other sources of authority, so long as they don’t conflict with how they understand the scriptures.

It is a very good question, though. How is it this practice got started when it is not found in the Bible?

Well…Guano…I think you hit on a very important point…“so long as they don’t conflict with how they understand the scriptures”…

 

[pablope]

Its almost a hysteria of desperate attempts to minimize Catholic teaching by fellow Catholics. You have definite issues with the Vatican yet prefer to attack Lutherans. Confidence and compassion seem to missing from several Catholic posters. It is a loss for all of us.

Can you cite an example where my fellow catholics here have attempted to minimize Catholic teaching? And can you name a Catholic here that has issues with the Vatican and what are those issues you mention?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Meanwhile, the oldest Roman Catholic diocese in the 13 Colonies wasn’t established until 1789. Are we then to conclude that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until 125 years after Lutherans had been established in the US? Of course not! The truth is that both of our communions existed before this country was founded, even if we worshiped and spoke in different languages or even we recognized by different names.

Catholic Missions were established in CONUS right after Columbus in what is now Florida, Georgia, Texas and California. I may be missing some States.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Can you cite an example where my fellow catholics here have attempted to minimize Catholic teaching? And can you name a Catholic here that has issues with the Vatican and what are those issues you mention?

Yes, my denying or ignoring current Catholic thought/ official declarations with Lutherans. One only need read any post by Topper to see overt resistance to Vatican 2.

 

[pablope]

Not in any one particular location, as Luther himself never systematically addressed it. We do not base our definition of SS on any one writing of Luther, per se, but rather, on how our confessions in the Book of Concord defines it.

I will address the second part of what you said later, as I’m at work.

Thanks…I did not see that you have responded.

So Luther did not actually define…so some Lutherans then developed the definition? Who would they be?

 

[guanophore]

One of the problems with the Protestant assertion
that the Catholic Church withheld the Bible from laity
therefore Luther was correct in his SS ideas is this
historical fact:

I have never heard this assertion made. Actually, I can’t see how the two are connected. It seems to me that Luther had problems with the CC for quite some time before he created this doctrine. His complaints about corruption would have been the same even if everyone had a Bible on their shelf. Luther wanted a more pure source by which clergy could be measured, and the most pure he could think of was the Scripture.

I have heard it asserted that the CC withheld the scriptures so that the laity would not be able to know how corrupted they clergy had become. There is some truth to that in some areas of Europe. Clerical offices were bought and sold, and there were some people ordained as priests that knew little more than the laity (very poor formation).

Originally much of Catholic laity were illiterate and could not read or afford a Bible.

I am not so sure this was true in the first to third centuries. The level of literacy in the Roman Empire was much higher than it was in Europe during the middle ages. The sheer number and breadth of distribution of manuscripts of what is now our NT is amazing given the political and religious persecution of the time.

However in 1440 Guttenburg began
printing press and by 1450, fully fifty years before Luther
was out of short pants, Guttenburg began printing Bibles slowly.
By the time Luther was in full swing, many different
works, not just religious, had been printed making
the ability to obtain written materials and learn to
read way more widespread than prior.

Well you history is leaving a gap of about 1200 years during which a lot of political and economic issues impacted literacy.

That is why the literacy rate was increasing so
quickly before the advent of Luther’s 95 Theses and the Reformation.
Among who was the literacy rate increasing prior to Luther? Catholics and Jews.
Increasingly Catholic laity both owned and could read their Bible.

Even after the printing press, the Church was very cautious about distribution of the Bible. This is why there were issues with Tyndale and Wycliffe. The Church did not tolerate any unauthorized translations.

This had absolutely NOTHING to do with the
Catholic Church or Martin Luther or the Reformation.
It was due ENTIRELY to the printing press.

It cannot escape our notice that the first book he decided to publish was a Bible.

But I do agree, there were many factors involved in the Reformation, most of them not even theological. One has to admit, however, that the end result is just exactly what the Church most feared - SS essentially made everyone their own authority over the meaning of the Scriptures, to the great disgust of Luther and other Reformers, who did not tolerate hterodoxy either.

**

marywarfield:
Therefore the claim that the Bible became available to Catholics only through Protestantism is simply
false.**

Was such an assertion made on this thread?

 

[pablope]

Yes, my denying or ignoring current Catholic thought/ official declarations with Lutherans. One only need read any post by Topper to see overt resistance to Vatican 2.

Are the official declarations with Lutherans carry the weight of dogma/doctrine? Has a bishop/archbishop/cardinal/pope said that these declarations are to be believed by all R Catholics and that RCs are to be bound by these declarations?

 

[marywarfield]

I have never heard this assertion made. Actually, I can’t see how the two are connected. It seems to me that Luther had problems with the CC for quite some time before he created this doctrine. His complaints about corruption would have been the same even if everyone had a Bible on their shelf. Luther wanted a more pure source by which clergy could be measured, and the most pure he could think of was the Scripture.

I have heard it asserted that the CC withheld the scriptures so that the laity would not be able to know how corrupted they clergy had become. There is some truth to that in wsome areas of Europe. Clerical offices were bought and sold, and there were some people ordained as priests that knew little more than the laity (very poor formation).

I am not so sure this was true in the first to third centuries. The level of literacy in the Roman Empire was much higher than it was in Europe during the middle ages. The sheer number and breadth of distribution of manuscripts of what is now our NT is amazing given the political and religious persecution of the time.

Well you history is leaving a gap of about 1200 years during which a lot of political and economic issues impacted literacy.

Even after the printing press, the Church was very cautious about distribution of the Bible. This is why there were issues with Tyndale and Wycliffe. The Church did not tolerate any unauthorized translations.

It cannot escape our notice that the first book he decided to publish was a Bible.

But I do agree, there were many factors involved in the Reformation, most of them not even theological. One has to admit, however, that the end result is just exactly what the Church most feared - SS essentially made everyone their own authority over the meaning of the Scriptures, to the great disgust of Luther and other Reformers, who did not tolerate hterodoxy either.

**

Was such an assertion made on this thread?**

More accusations toward the Church with absolutely NOTHING to back it up.
Can you provide some accurate reference to:
“the Church withheld the Bible so the laity would not know how corrupt the clergy had become?”
That is actually an absurd ad hominem. In fact all of your statements on this particular topic are ad hominems.

Secondly as I stated earlier: the literacy rate was on
the increase and Bibles affordably printed before
Luther was out of short pants.
The Bibles were distributed not just by the Church
the laity had their own in many cases.
The Church demanding a particular translation be
used or chaining expensive handwritten Bibles
to the pulpit is NOT evidence that the Church withheld
the Bible from the laity.

 

[guanophore]

Which is it then? Are you or are you not Protestant?

Actually it is not uncommon these days for non-Catholic Christians to eschew the term “protestant” by saying “I am not protesting anything”.

Why should I NOT lump all Protestants together with
Lutherans if you yourself consider Lutherans to be
Protestants?

“Lumping” people and lableing them is usually is a result of prejudice and ignorance, so there are two good reasons to avoid this. Additionalliy, it is disrespectful to categorize people into our pidgeonholes rather than listeningto them and understanding their point of view. How are we to have any productive dialogue?

He has chosen the screen name “evangelcatholic” which would seem to indicate he considers himself an evangelical catholic. Whether you agree with that self description or not, it is a good place to start a dialogue.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Are the official declarations with Lutherans carry the weight of dogma/doctrine? Has a bishop/archbishop/cardinal/pope said that these declarations are to be believed by all R Catholics and that RCs are to be bound by these declarations?

Those are questions best addressed to fellow Catholics/ Holy See. Ultimately one has to accept credibility or settle for hysteria.

What is so ironic to those of us who have close Catholic family members [including grandchildren] is how atypical many of the CAF Catholic posters are to the actual Catholic Church. Instead of inviting fellow Christians into a closer relationship, as the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity proposes, these posters rely on agitation and deprecation. Very unbecoming of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Can one imagine how Francis, the holy Father would respond? Isn’t that what we all strive to be? Like this saint among us, the Pope of the Church.

 

[marywarfield]

Actually it is not uncommon these days for non-Catholic Christians to eschew the term “protestant” by saying “I am not protesting anything”.

“Lumping” people and lableing them is usually is a result of prejudice and ignorance, so there are two good reasons to avoid this. Additionalliy, it is disrespectful to categorize people into our pidgeonholes rather than listeningto them and understanding their point of view. How are we to have any productive dialogue?

He has chosen the screen name “evangelcatholic” which would seem to indicate he considers himself an evangelical catholic. Whether you agree with that self description or not, it is a good place to start a dialogue.

Ok. I’m tired of your ad hominem attacks on the Catholic
Church and on me. Ad hominem isn’t even allowed is it
on the forum?
In any case attacking the Church with your distortions
of truth without anything to back your statements in post
after post is probably the worst case of prejudice which
is exactly what you are doing here.
I suggest we ignore each other from here on out.

 

[marywarfield]

Are the official declarations with Lutherans carry the weight of dogma/doctrine? Has a bishop/archbishop/cardinal/pope said that these declarations are to be believed by all R Catholics and that RCs are to be bound by these declarations?

Absolutely not. And yes you are free to agree
with the declarations and free to disagree as well.

It is astonishing how many Lutherans here disagree
about what Lutheranism actually is yet point to the
declarations as proof of their points.
Makes no sense to me.

Are the declarations considered to be infallible or
an article of faith? Absolutely NO.

To me they sound like a very charitable Catholic
Church responding to Lutheran wishful thinking.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Absolutely not. And yes you are free to agree
with the declarations and free to disagree as well.

It is astonishing how many Lutherans here disagree
about what Lutheranism actually is yet point to the
declarations as proof of their points.
Makes no sense to me.

Are the declarations considered to be infallible or
an article of faith? Absolutely NO.

To me they sound like a very charitable Catholic
Church responding to Lutheran wishful thinking.

Calm down please. You need a break from CAF.

 

[guanophore]

Those are questions best addressed to fellow Catholics/ Holy See.

The answer is no, they do not have that authority. You are right, they are important theological dialogues, but they are not part of the Teaching of the Church, and tdo not have the authority of dogma and doctrine.

Ultimately one has to accept credibility or settle for hysteria.

This seems like an unfair dicotomy. I do not think that marywarfield is “hysterical” at all. She may have no interest in what you offered, but that does not mean she has chosen hysteria over credibility.

 What is so ironic to those of us who have close Catholic family members [including grandchildren] is how atypical many of the CAF Catholic posters are to the actual Catholic Church.  Instead of inviting fellow Christians into a closer relationship, as the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity proposes, these posters rely on agitation and deprecation.  Very unbecoming of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I have to agree with your point here. CAF tends towards an adversarial and argumentative culture, except in the Catholic Living section and the Meet and Greet. Most of us are here to have a good debate. Overall it is not a good environment for fellowship, and the topics do sometimes seem to strain the charity of members.

Can one imagine how Francis, the holy Father would respond? Isn’t that what we all strive to be? Like this saint among us, the Pope of the Church.

I doubt they would be drawn to such a venue, but St. Paul might! He was always up for a heated debate.