E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I think some of the confusion is over the application of the Lutheran Confessions as the final say in what is doctrine. That is why Lutheran posters seem puzzled over exactly what you are asking.
- Status
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I don’t know the Latin, but that is exactly what sola scriptura means.
"the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone".
The problem is others have changed the definition to hamburger, not us. The quote I provided is from the 1500’s. Luther’s quote comes before the confessions, but in many ways, reflects what we believe - scripture as “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone”.
I never claimed they were. We are not the ones that claim someone is infallible, nor do we expect people to be so. That does not mean, however, that fallible people can’t be right. Popes and bishops, scholars and theologians do it all the time. How our communion determines whether they are right is by holding them accountable to scriptures. That’s how sola scriptura works.
I beliebe you are under two mistaken impressions here: 1) that Luther defined specifically sola scriptura. AFAIK, he did not, and probably did not use the term. 2) that Lutherans are bound to Luther.
You were a member of an LCMS Church. You said that that parish never felt the need to refer to the confessions. My response was that this is not Lutheran practice, that t was poor catechesis, which means, BTW, the training of children and adults in the faith, using a catechism. Catholics and Lutherans both use that term, because we both use catechisms in the instruction of the Christian faith.
You said your parish didn’t do that. I said that this is poor catechesis, and does not properly reflect the historic Lutheran understanding of sola scriptura.
I’ll close with what I’ve said before, I thank God you are being blessed in word and sacrament in the Catholic Church.
His peace,
Jon
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think so, Annie39. I went back and read the beginniing of the thread, and what seems clear to me is that Lutherans do not subscribe to a fundamentalist definition of SS.
SS is a Lutheran creation, to a degree, and a fundamental practice upon which the entire ecclesial community is based. SS has been redefined and used differently in other communities that have developed since that time, but the Lutheran Church retains that which lies at it’s forming.
This was explained very well by the Lutherans on this thread, so all that has been proved to me is that the modern fundamentalist definition you are using does not fit this square peg into a round hole.
A
Annie39
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
I am puzzled about why you would reject what the Lutherans say about themselves. It seems like you do so because there was poor catechesis in your parish, but you seem to have satisfied yourself that “Lutherans don’t practice SS”, even though your understanding of it is different than what is officially Lutheran. I just wonder why it is so important to refuse to accept what the Lutherans on this thread have stated.
A
Annie39
Guest
Sigh
T
Topper17
Guest
Thanks to Eric for pushing the ‘reset button’. We were kind of straying. Of course the subject of the thread is the use of SS in the Lutheran church. The following recent post, from this morning, after the ‘reset’, and my response to it (below) will hopefully help us refocus on the topic at hand.
With all due respect, I don’t think that this idea of the Lutheran Church setting doctrine, and that ‘SS is a practice of the Church’, makes any sense. It seems to me that there are huge holes in the logic associated with this concept. Specifically and exactly (of course), the problems are as follows.
Hi Jon,
With all due respect, I don’t think that this idea of the Lutheran Church setting doctrine, and that ‘SS is a practice of the Church’, makes any sense. It seems to me that there are huge holes in the logic associated with this concept. Specifically and exactly (of course), the problems are as follows.
- Martin Luther is the founder of Lutheranism and he didn’t follow this rule. He used his Private Interpretation to challenge and deny the teachings of His Church. For him SS was not a practice of the Church at all, it was his private practice. As you know, he taught Private Interpretation for individuals, only pulling back from that disastrous teaching after it had become obvious, even to him, that it resulted in doctrinal dissension.
- All of those Theologians who followed Luther initially in rejecting the teachings of their Church didn’t follow this ‘rule’ of SS being a practice of the Church. If they had actually followed that rule, there never would have been a Lutheran church.
- Similarly, all of those Theologians who drew up the Lutheran Confessions, supposedly forming the Lutheran doctrinal positions were not following this rule either. They drew up those Confessions in defiance of their Church. By what right did they do so?
- Lutherans can claim that SS and doctrines are the responsibility of the church, but what ‘church’ does this refer to? Which Lutheran church is the one which has the authority to establish doctrine, interpret Scripture, and ‘practice’ SS? This question is in light of the fact that we have competing and conflicting Lutheran communions which are not even in unity with each other, with those conflicts being over, among other things, the interpretation of Scripture.
- Given that the Lutheran church set a precedent of challenging the teachings of the church of the time, it is hardly in a position now, and it never has been, to challenge those who wish to break the ‘SS is a role of the church’ rule.
- As an example, it was not from within the Church that Luther pronounced the pope to be the antichrist. It was because of this ‘teaching’ and many, many others that Luther was excommunicated, although in reality, it was through those teachings that he excommunicated himself. Once he was excommunicated by the Church though, he didn’t have the authority granted him by the Church to teach, or administer the Sacraments (what few he retained).
- What is meant by ‘church’ in your statement? Does this refer to the LCMS, or the LWF, or the ELCA. Or could this Lutheran ‘rule’ also apply to the RCC, and the EOC, and the various Baptist denominations? In all honesty, it cannot be them all. The idea of the authority to teach cannot be so relativistic that it includes all of them because the Holy Spirit does not validate competing and conflicting teachings. The only way that your statement could make sense is if your communion, the LCMS, is the ‘one’ being referred to, and that ALL of the others which teach differently, are NOT really ‘the church’.
I agree that Christ and the Scriptures command unity, including doctrinal unity, but your ‘means’, that has NOT resulted in doctrinal or any other kind of unity. Luther was surprised that the movement that he established became fractured. He was warned that this would happen, but he foolishly ignored those warnings.
T
Topper17
Guest
IF Luther’s movement would have remained whole, rather than splintering into an uncountable number of doctrinally conflicting denominations, it would be in a far better position to make claims regarding its validity. The fact that it has become such a doctrinal disaster shows it for what it really is. Eck recognized this and so did dozens of (better) Theologians who realized where Luther’s Revolt was headed. The following quote is telling:
**“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with the authority of the Church’s interpretation? **For this reason – because, **owing to the depth of Holy Scripture all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novation expounds it in one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinarius, Pricillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius another, lastly, Nestorius another. ****Therefore it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with standard of Ecclesisastical and Catholic interpretation.” **
One of the really interesting things to note here is that the early Church experienced AND battled so many different types of heresies, that by the 16th century, anything “new” could only be mostly a combination of previous heresies. If we substitute names like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and a LOT of Smiths for the names above, this could have been written by just about any Catholic after the 16th century. So who wrote it?
St. Vincent of Lernins, Commentary, 10:27 (c. A.D. 434), NPNF 2, XI:137-138
The fact is that Luther was outside the Church when he defied the doctrines of the Church and pronounced the pope to be the antichrist.
At the very least, Lutherans should completely understand why the Church opposed Luther and his doctrinal innovations, and why the Church still rejects those radical doctrines.
Lutheranism was founded on defying the ‘rule’ that you claim now governs Lutheranism. Luther didn’t follow that rule and neither did the first Lutherans. As such, Lutheranism has no leg to stand on in claiming that NOW people should follow this rule. As a result, it will certainly continue to fracture and become more and more secular and theologically ‘progressive’.
**Jon, you state that: “it is the Church that sets doctrine, SS is a practice of the Church”. This begs the question: What is the definition, specifically and exactly, of the term ‘church’? Again, I would suggest that this is a really tough question for you, but I would very much appreciate it if you would answer it directly. **
God Bless You Jon, Topper
**“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with the authority of the Church’s interpretation? **For this reason – because, **owing to the depth of Holy Scripture all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novation expounds it in one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinarius, Pricillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius another, lastly, Nestorius another. ****Therefore it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with standard of Ecclesisastical and Catholic interpretation.” **
One of the really interesting things to note here is that the early Church experienced AND battled so many different types of heresies, that by the 16th century, anything “new” could only be mostly a combination of previous heresies. If we substitute names like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and a LOT of Smiths for the names above, this could have been written by just about any Catholic after the 16th century. So who wrote it?
St. Vincent of Lernins, Commentary, 10:27 (c. A.D. 434), NPNF 2, XI:137-138
The fact is that Luther was outside the Church when he defied the doctrines of the Church and pronounced the pope to be the antichrist.
At the very least, Lutherans should completely understand why the Church opposed Luther and his doctrinal innovations, and why the Church still rejects those radical doctrines.
Lutheranism was founded on defying the ‘rule’ that you claim now governs Lutheranism. Luther didn’t follow that rule and neither did the first Lutherans. As such, Lutheranism has no leg to stand on in claiming that NOW people should follow this rule. As a result, it will certainly continue to fracture and become more and more secular and theologically ‘progressive’.
**Jon, you state that: “it is the Church that sets doctrine, SS is a practice of the Church”. This begs the question: What is the definition, specifically and exactly, of the term ‘church’? Again, I would suggest that this is a really tough question for you, but I would very much appreciate it if you would answer it directly. **
God Bless You Jon, Topper
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually Jon did not specify that the “Lutheran” Church set the doctrine, but “the” Church (there is only one). The vast majority of doctrine was imported from Catholicism.
I am not sure why Lutherans even called themselves by that name, because it really does not appear to me that Luther is really the founder. From what I have learned here from Jon and other Lutherans, the Church that we now know of as “Lutheran” is actually founded on the Book of Concord, which was not written or assembled by Luther (although there were significant influences from his theology).
You are right, Luther did not follow that rule, and he did become very offended when others disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture.
It was followed a lot more closely with the Confessions in the Concord that Luther ever followed it as an individual.
Calvin designed most of his Institutes in solitary confinement. But although he did not consult with the “church” he saw himself as a representative and authorative voice in that church. He also got angry when people disagreed with him.
Inadvertantly the corrupt clergy in these regions preciptated this. They did not carry any respect for themselves or the office they occupied. It was obvious that many of the bishops purchased their positions, and did not meet the scriptural requirements to hold the office they occupied. Luther, as well as Calvin, Zwingli and a lot of others were fervently seeking a more pure, more authentic experience of Christianity and Church. It was not a matter of having been given authority, but a response to those in the position of authority having lost the complete confidence of the flock they had been ordained to shepherd.
G
guanophore
Guest
I will let Jon and others take this on further, but it seems clear that not only Lutherans but also Anglicans see the Church of Christ as crossing denominational lines, and accept many things Catholic and even Orthodox. The three creeds which Jon has referenced are accepted by all these communions.
Actually the Lutheran communion did very little challenging of anyone after the Book of Concord was written. While Luther continued to rant against the Pope until his death, the concords enabled the faithful to unplug from the conflict, settle into their faith practice and move forward. There was no interest in continuing to attack the Latin Rite, since the separation had already been accomplished.
Granted, the meaning of sS has changed, especially recently, but for 90 % of the life of the congregation that is the understanding that was shared by all.
Well, you cant’ really have it both ways Topper. He was a baptized, confirmed, vowed Catholic when he made those statements. It would be hard to get more “within” the Church than Luther was. He was completely sold out, as a priest, monk, and teacher to all things Catholic.
As for your last sentence, he believed that he had been given the authority by God to do these things, and that no man could take it from him.
Surprised and grieved. He believed that adherance to the Scriptures would restore holiness and unity.
G
guanophore
Guest
That may be, but the Eastern Orthodox say the same thing about the Latin Church. From their point of view, we left the One Faith and splintering has been going on ever since. They see the Protestant Reformation as the fruit of our abandonment of the One True Church.
And what you refer to as “Luther’s Movement” may not be entirely accurate. While the German and Bavarian princes had strong economic and political reasons to support his ideas and capitalize on his divisive approach, Zwingli and Calvin worked independently of Luther, producing the fruit of division that always results when the clergy are corrupt.
A
Annie39
Guest
Well Topper you outdid yourself again. Beautifully stated. I’m going to save it. As I said but not so brilliantly as yourself. Luther practiced SS himself but Lutherans don’t. They say the do but they changed the definition to suit their change in doctrine. Words mean things.
Annie
If you read the opening post, and my response to it, you will see that your response here is in no way related to it. But alas…
Have you read the Epitome of the Formula of Concord? It explains what we do. If you then read the OP, and my response, you will see how they relate. But you, like Annie, have stated an unwillingness to actually read the confessions, so it not making sense is not surprising.
Seek out the one that maintains orthodoxy, and adherence to the confessions.
Obviously, neither did Rome’s means, or we would not be having this conversation. There was division in the Church long before Luther, or Zwingli, or Hus. There was Cardinal Humbertus, and Pope Leo IX, and Patriarch Cerularius. We certainly have no corner on the divisions front.
And of course, it is unrelated to the topic of the thread, which was stated in the OP, and to which I responded about Lutheran practice, proper catechesis, the use of the confessions, etc.
Jon
My choice is to actually listen to the leaders of the CC, who have a decidedly different approach to providing that information than yours. But we’ve been through this before, that your polemics do not serve the purpose you allege to have here, and it is off the topic of the thread.
Then you have nothing to fear from it. Perhaps, then, your time would be better spent telling us Lutherans about the Catholic Church, since any day now the Lutheran Church will become so progressive, many of us in the LCMS will need a landing place.
From the Augsburg Confession:
I await the day when you provide a positive view of the Catholic Church, and will respond to you then.
His peace,
Jon
A
Annie39
Guest
But Jon it is absolutely on topic and stated beautifully as I said. That is what made this compelling enough for me to comment. IMHO you shouldn’t expect anyone to read Confessions when trying to prove that you practice SS. Thats the whole thing in a nutshell. Luther himself practiced SS those who followed didn’t. You have your own tradition and it seems, your own magisterium. I don’t think that you are denying this because you are being disingenuous. I really think that you don’t see this. None the less its true. You are glad for me that I have my faith. I am hoping that you one day and soon you will join the true Church. I hope that you will one day be able to receive true absolution and the True Eucharist.
Pax et bonum Jon
Annie
G
guanophore
Guest
The Congregation/Communion that is presently know as Lutheran was born out of the Confessions outlined in the Book of Concord. What doctrines have been changed since that time?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
This captures the essence of this debate. Words mean things. Question is, how? You seem to think that they have inherent meanings which override intended usage, whereas others acknowledge a more nuanced character of meaning.
A
Annie39
Guest
Indeed. But I’m handicapped due to the fact that I came of age before 1984.
Annie
BTW I’m glad that you see that this captures the essence of the debate since others might think that it is off topic.
He is wrong. You did not attend an evangelische parish in the 1520’s, I assume. So, the practice of the parish you did attend should have been to use the confessions for catechesis. The way you portrayed that Lutheran parish as not using the confessions for catechesis is outside Lutheran practice. This is a fact. EC has presented his experience in the LCMS in his youth. I presented mine as a youth in an LCA parish. My son was confirmed in an ELCA parish, my daughter in an LCMS parish. The practices were essentially the same. The confessions are used for catechesis, child and adult.
You can claim, without reading the confessions, that you know more about how Lutheran parishes are supposed to do catechesis. As I said before, that’s fine.
So, you wouldn’t expect me to read the CCC when you want me to understand a Catholic teaching. I frankly do not understand this concept.
Who says? The confessions are the barometer of Lutheran practice. We practice sola scriptura. That Luther did something different or not doesn’t matter. You didn’t attend an evangelische parish in the 1520’s, so your experience should have reflected Lutheran practice, not Martin Luther. And Lutheran practice is to use extra-biblical documents, as the confessions tell us to teach. And teachings, regardless of their sourcve, are normed by scripture. That’s sola scriptura.
Well, thanks. I don’t think you are being disingenuous either. But being unwilling to read the symbols of the Lutheran Church puts you in a position of discussing something without the appropriate background information.
Even though I consider myself as part of the true Church, if by no other means than by Baptism, I appreciate the kind invitation.
I already do, but again, thanks.
His peace also with you,
Jon
- Status