Over 250 Protestant Leaders Sign 'Reforming Catholic Confession' on Essentials of Christian Faith

[tgGodsway]

I can agree with your point.

 

[rcwitness]

So no, that wouldnt be constructive?

I understand only the Magisterium is ultimately able to Teach with binding authority. Thats the law.

But anyone, lay person or clergy is able to understand what is true and right. The magisterium (or the members who excercise magisterium) can be influenced by a little girl, if she happens to relate what God shows her.

I guess my point is that if the Church thinks its a good thing for these leaders to present a statement of essential beliefs from the Reformation, wouldnt it be beneficial to present a statement of essential beliefs from the Council of Trent?

 

[tgGodsway]

I believe they got it right based on the content of those books.

 

[rcwitness]

Well they wouldnt be basing it on the content of Homer’s Odyssey, right?

 

[tgGodsway]

Historical and archeological evidence is a good start. But this wheel has already been invented. We already have the historical players who surrounded Jesus. We have a short history in the book of Acts all barring witness to what happened. We also have Jewish customs, culture, traditions that give us texture to each story. We even have a record of the abuse of Judaism to which Christ addressed. All of these factors play into anyone who comes along with a “writing” and want to be apart of the canon. Paul was strong to defend his doctrine which was brilliantly laid out for all to see.

What is Homer’s Odyssey?

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, so now there are factors other than the content alone? That sounds more reasonable.

To say “We judge if a writing is Scripture based on the content alone”, then that means Scripture is subject to whoever decides its inspired or not.

So you mention Tradition. Thats good! The Church relied on Tradition too. Not from men, but what had been professed through the Christian fathers, rulers, and Councils. The Church used reason, content, what she knows about our Lord, Tradition, and ultimately Teaching authority to declare a Canon.

I still think its silly for some groups of Christians to hold to Sola Scriptura, and not have a single ecumenical council which affirms a canon of Scripture!

 

[rcwitness]

Homer’s Odyssey is an ancient story which has nothing to do with the apocrypha books.

 

[tgGodsway]

I do not think protestants are anti-tradition, only cautious knowing that tradition itself must be examined and scrutinized in light of inspired scripture. It is a blunder to make any tradition equal in authority to scripture in our view. And this is what the RCC did.

It is this narrow point that concerns protestants, especially in light of the negative warnings directly from our Lord and savior about tradition. You talk about how tradition was professed by"Church fathers, rulers and councils."

I wouldn’t normally be concerned, but what you mean by Church fathers were actually people who did not know the Lord, nor His apostles and in most cases did not know those who knew them. These, in our view, were people outside the apostolic circle of culture, tradition, and in most cases established doctrine. And in most of RC history, they were people centuries removed from the N.T. scene as valid witnesses.

Yet they insist on playing the role as a "Church father, " implying to naïve people that they are rooted in the divine foundation and equal in authority to any apostle. This, to us, is ludicrous.

 

[commenter]

I’ve said before here that dialogue between Rome and Lutherans, for example, is limited with the ELCA/LWF and they move further away from orthodoxy. The future is with confessional Lutherans

True. Likewise, the real potential for cooperation with Anglican types is with the Continuum and - maybe - ACNA. Not with the C of E or TEC.

I am not seeing much “dialogue” going on with Lutherans. There have been a few photo ops, with our bishop and the bishop from ELCA. But dialogue requires a common language even to begin to engage, and we are a little more distant each year. What we have now is courtesy, a small good thing.

A few decades ago there were lots of local liberal Catholic priests and sisters interested in any kind of ecumenical activity with mainline churches. That generation is mostly gone, and not replaced.

 

[hope]

I believe that Paul has a different view than you.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

In my view, scripture Is tradition that is written down.

 

[tgGodsway]

Thank you Hope, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am aware of 2nd. Thess. 2:15 along with what Paul wrote in 1st. Cor… 11:2. As I mentioned before, protestants are not opposed to tradition in general. Paul’s tradition was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and in step with his letters. But tradition itself was not a license to invent, or to steer doctrine in another direction.

But when “tradition” evolves over time to transform into a direct contradiction with holy scripture, this is when we pause to say, Okay… how does this tradition fall in line with holy inspired scripture? or does it?

So that tradition is always in submission to, and scrutinized by, holy scripture. Scripture gets the final word.
Blessings,

 

[hope]

The Catholic Church is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You have no idea everything that Paul or for that matter Jesus said. The Apostles was taught directly by Jesus who in turn taught succeeding generations. Oral tradition came before the written word. It is merely your interpretation that leads you to believe that doctrine was “invented” or taken in “another direction”. It is those outside of the Church who are actually guilty of doing this. There is no contradiction between oral tradition and written tradition. There can be false interpretation but both written and oral traditions are inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[adf417]

Unless there is new information thrown into the issue to warrant another reformation concerning the books, I guess God is done. But you do not have any bragging rights over this as RC. Four centuries of banter is nothing to boast about. Obviously there were many things to consider and the process was difficult.

We do not take the position that those who made these choices were infallible. They were men like you and I who needed the Holy Spirit to guide them. The word of God was already in existence before they collected it. We contend that though the process was fallible, our God is infallible. He got His way despite our frame and weaknesses. And for that He receives all the glory.

Blessings,

I understand your point that you do not believe the men who made the choices were infallible but you fail to explain how it is you can believe this while holding to the belief the men that wrote the words were writing infallibly at the time and yet not know precisley who these people were.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

I believe they got it right based on the content of those books.

Thats a very easy position to take from your perspective. I use it also. I know many who have never read them and hold this position. When asked “well did you read them?” Their answer is “I don’t have to the Church did it for me many years ago”. Then the conversation turns to “Tradition” again - which is the reason I use your statment above. The difference seems to be my “Tradition” can never change.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

I believe they got it right based on the content of those books.

…and another point to this post is…

You believe the “apocryphal” books should have not been included from the the beginning - 4th century on. If the church got it wrong in the 4th century how do you know they didn’t include books that should have been included at that time? Did you also read the hundreds of other books being used in the 1st 4 centuries that didn’t make the canon?

Peace!!!

 

[simpleas]

I haven’t read all those 95? topics Luther wanted to debate with Rome, has anyone got a link to the original text? I’m curious as to what he had major issues with that drove him to ‘challenge’ rome, and wonder would any of us now agree with his issues.

I found this, I think it’s legit. I can understand why Luther questioned what was happening at that time, it’s a shame the reformation happened, but it seems like it had to happen…

https://www.theopedia.com/95-theses

 

[rcwitness]

I do not think protestants are anti-tradition, only cautious knowing that tradition itself must be examined and scrutinized in light of inspired scripture. It is a blunder to make any tradition equal in authority to scripture in our view. And this is what the RCC did.

It is this narrow point that concerns protestants, especially in light of the negative warnings directly from our Lord and savior about tradition. You talk about how tradition was professed by"Church fathers, rulers and councils."

I wouldn’t normally be concerned, but what you mean by Church fathers were actually people who did not know the Lord, nor His apostles and in most cases did not know those who knew them. These, in our view, were people outside the apostolic circle of culture, tradition, and in most cases established doctrine. And in most of RC history, they were people centuries removed from the N.T. scene as valid witnesses.

Yet they insist on playing the role as a "Church father, " implying to naïve people that they are rooted in the divine foundation and equal in authority to any apostle. This, to us, is ludicrous.

The Church recognizes some Traditions as being from Jesus and the Apostles, yet was not excplicitly written down in any writings which were eventually recognized as Sacred Scripture. Some of these Traditions are directly related to how some books were believed to be genuine, and unadultered, Scripture. Traditions are definitely Scrutinized! Just like the writings that were claimed to be Scripture! You see, the same way we had to discern what was genuine Scripture, we had to discern what Traditions are genuine. That capability which gives us confidence that we can trust in, is due to the Holy Spirit being promised and sent to us by Jesus. It is lawfully recognized as a Teaching authority called Magisterium.

Yes, traditions must be cautioned against, when anyone places some as attributed to God. And i even believe that there are very few genuine Traditions which do not have a solid reference within Scripture.

I dont think the Church calls any member of the Church equal in authority to the Apostles. The Apostles are definitely unique in their office in the Church. The fact still remains, that no one has a record of the Apostles giving the Church a Canon for Scripture! We were forced to discern the writings with what we had, and still have. The Church fathers were very important in that process. Just look at what St Irenaeus helped establish with the 4 Gospels! How were the 4 Gospels not firmly received universally as early as in his lifetime, let alone the other Scriptures??? Here is some Wiki articles about him. Check out the section on Scripture: Irenaeus - Wikipedia

We owe respect and appreciation for God’s work in St Irenaeus! Though he was not alone. There were many early Church leaders who the Church drew from in order to discern genuine Scripture.

 

[exnihilo]

I do not place tradition on equal par with scripture because of it’s history of fallibility.

This ends up being circular. How do you know Tradition was wrong? Because it disagrees with your interpretation of Holy Scripture. You assume your interpretation is the correct one and that, consequently, Tradition was wrong. But if Tradition was right it would be your interpretation that is wrong.

 

[exnihilo]

And the attempt to place Scripture above Sacred Tradition and Church Teaching does not diminish the veneration we hold Scripture with. It just means Protestants diminish what made it possible to have your our trusty Bible. And i agree that God’s sovereignty provides us with Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium!

An excellent point. I’ve often looked at Protestantism as being like fiat currency. Fiat currency is money that is declared money which has no intrinsic value. It is our paper dollars which are not backed by gold.

You don’t start with paper money with no value. You start with money that has real value like gold or silver. You then may have pieces of paper that represent that valuable gold or silver.

It is only then that you can get to fiat currency. You can at this point declare the paper no longer has any intrinsic value. You can at this point say it can’t be exchanged for something of real value. The people have a sense of the money having value because it is custom and it did have some value, by being backed by something real, prior to this declaration.

But you could never just start with valueless money. It is literally like convincing someone to exchange Monopoly money for something valuable.

Protestantism is like this. They say the Bible is the sole rule of faith. But they can only do this because the Bible was recognized as Holy books by an institution with value, the Catholic Church. You couldn’t just start with a collection of books. It wouldn’t have anything of value behind it giving it value.

 

[exnihilo]

The Church universal has never had universal agreement on the canon of scripture, and it hasn’t limited the Spirit’s ability to guide the Church. Under your argument here, there are numerous fathers of the Church who were not guided by the Spirit, Athanasius notable among them. There were numerous individuals and patriarchates who held to different canons long before the Reformation era.

If true this would be a problem for any group that practices any form of Sola Scriptura. How can doctrine and practice be judged against Scripture if there is not authoritative canon?