Protestants DENY Tradition?

[Jubilarian]

It doesn’t change the truth of Jon’s statement. The fact of the matter is, is that St. Thomas Aquinas, were he alive today, would be considered separated from the church because he denied this very doctrine/Tradition. He didn’t run the risk of this 800 years ago.

Okay, it’s common for disagreements with doctrine to cause separation. No mystery. However I asked a question concerning the here and now.

 

[KjetilK]

And an overwhelming number of Protestant denominations DENY the Roman Cathokic Tradition of the Immaculate Conception for example. so here you have Reformation Protestants in unison with a Tradition being denied. This was my original point.

But the question is: Is that Tradition? Can it be traced back to the Church Fathers? And you are still lumping every ‘Protestant’ into one group.

I happen to believe that they can be traced, and the Immaculate Conception is in fact part of Lutheran tradition, as seen in Luther’s Smalcald Articles. Mary is there referred to as “the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.”

 

[Jubilarian]

Lutheran? Pentecostal? Evangelical? What? They are vastly different. I have more in common with a Roman Catholic than with a baptist.

Yes, and so? Does that invalidate the arguments I have presented?

And I say that is wrong, because you conflate vastly different denominations and churches into one group. As a Lutheran I hold to Tradition - with a capital T. The Lutheran approach is the same approach as we see in Ratzinger’s Dogma and Preaching. Scripture first, then Tradition, then the interpretive office, then the concrete faith of the faithful.

I might be wrong, but do you hold to the Immaculate Conception on a personal level or is it Lutheran doctrine that is mandatory to be “true” Lutheran?

Many Lutherans do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception. In fact if you do the research, Luther himself made contradictory statements about this doctrine.

 

[Jubilarian]

But the question is: Is that Tradition? Can it be traced back to the Church Fathers? And you are still lumping every ‘Protestant’ into one group.

I happen to believe that they can be traced, and the Immaculate Conception is in fact part of Lutheran tradition, as seen in Luther’s Smalcald Articles. Mary is there referred to as “the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.”

Now your getting ridiculous. Yes, it’s Tradition and I think you know that. Your scurrying around.

 

[KjetilK]

I might be wrong, but do you hold to the Immaculate Conception on a personal level or is it Lutheran doctrine that is mandatory to be “true” Lutheran?

Well, it is part of the Smalcald Articles, which is binding on those Lutherans who are bound to the whole Book of Concord. That doesn’t include the Church of Norway, but doesn’t exclude it either. It is not binding there, but neither are they frowned upon. They are binding on the LCMS, for instance.

Many Lutherans do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception.

Yes, and many Roman Catholics do not subscribe to their Church’s teaching on contraception. Doctrine is not decided by popular vote.

In fact if you do the research, Luther himself made contradictory statements about this doctrine.

So? Lutherans aren’t bound by his academic writings.

And I must add that the practice of using ‘Protestant’ as a overreaching definition is very American. It is hardly ever used in Norway.

 

[Jubilarian]

Well, it is part of the Smalcald Articles, which is binding on those Lutherans who are bound to the whole Book of Concord. That doesn’t include the Church of Norway, but doesn’t exclude it either. It is not binding there, but neither are they frowned upon. They are binding on the LCMS, for instance.

Yes, and many Roman Catholics do not subscribe to their Church’s teaching on contraception. Doctrine is not decided by popular vote.

So? Lutherans aren’t bound by his academic writings.

And I must add that the practice of using ‘Protestant’ as a overreaching definition is very American. It is hardly ever used in Norway.

No doubt that personal opinion isn’t the measuring rod, I just brought it up because it develops the first point you answered which is a bit hazy.

I live in America, and "Protestant " is used to distinguish between those that are Catholic or not. I agree it is a broad term but maybe the thousands of denominations should stop using it.

 

[KjetilK]

No doubt that personal opinion isn’t the measuring rod, I just brought it up because it develops the first point you answered which is a bit hazy.

I live in America, and "Protestant " is used to distinguish between those that are Catholic or not. I agree it is a broad term but maybe the thousands of denominations should stop using it.

The fact is that there are many who don’t use it, who avoid it, yet are still called by that name by ignorant outsiders, even when those are told not to.

 

[Jubilarian]

Not only is it a good suggestion, it is a must. One shouldn’t read the Council of Trent or the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what Lutherans teach, or the Augsburg Confession to find out what Roman Catholics teach.

Yes, I see no contradiction there to what I said, and there is nothing there that contradicts Lutheran teaching.

Well, I decided to instead refer to Dei Verbum and Verbum Domini, since they are binding in a way the Catechism isn’t. And I decided to refer to Ratzinger’s Dogma and Preaching, since he bases his theses there primarily on Dei Verbum.

Dogma and Preaching is available on Google Books. Read page 26-39, for Ratzinger’s explanation on the hierarchical order. What Ratzinger says there is that Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, and the concrete, contextual faith of the faithful depend on each other, but that primacy belongs first to Scripture, then to Tradition (focusing on the Creeds and Dogmas), then to the Magisterium (the servant of Scripture and Tradition*), and then to the concrete faith as it is lived out in the dioceses and parishes.

We find the same pattern in Lutheranism: Scripture is the norm which norms other norms (norma normans non normata); Tradition (focusing on the Creeds and Dogmas) are norms that are normed by Scripture (norma normata); the ordained priesthood, with the bishops as leaders, has the task to preach and interpret that which has been handed over (Confessio Augustana 14, 28); and this has to be lived out in the context of the faithful’s own lives.

• From Dei Verbum: “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

I disagree with your reading of Ratzinger’s writtings. Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium are described as triune, this reflecting the triune God. There is a functional hierarchy within the Godhead as well. However all are equal, Father, Son and Spirit.

The man is the head of the woman and God is the head of Christ. The man is not better or less equal to the woman just as Jesus is not less than the Father. This is what is being expressed with Scripture Tradition and the Magesterium.

 

[Jubilarian]

The fact is that there are many who don’t use it, who avoid it, yet are still called by that name by ignorant outsiders, even when those are told not to.

No , the fact is that many DO use it. The word has a purpose and you keep trying to diminish it because you feel I should have singled out each denomination.

 

[adf417]

---

It doesn’t change the truth of Jon’s statement. The fact of the matter is, is that St. Thomas Aquinas, were he alive today, would be considered separated from the church because he denied this very doctrine/Tradition. He didn’t run the risk of this 800 years ago.

Or, at the very least, we could know exactly what what his currents thoughts are and not have to speculate.

Peace!!!

 

[SyroMalankara]

This line of argumentation is misleading, St.Thomas Aquinas’ opinion after the Church’s pronouncement is speculation but considering his - and Newman’s, Jerome’s, Cajetan’s etc - written expositions on Authority, it is more likely than not that they would accept the Church’s view and not argue against it post-promulgation.

The idea that a very small group or groups of self-proclaimed Lutherans believe some fringe - in wider Lutheran terms - doctrine that may conflate with Catholicism is really immaterial, there are some who believe doctrines that conflate with Orthodox as well. These are so few and far between as to render them the exception rather than the norm, including clergy and leadership, as well as official teaching. Would Luther recognize any of the bodies which claim his name? If not, would they care? Should they?

 

[KjetilK]

I disagree with your reading of Ratzinger’s writtings.

Then feel free to point out where my reading is off, from the writing I posted. A heads up: I have a good knowledge of Ratzinger’ writings, having written my master’s thesis on his, and Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg’s, view on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist.

I can start you off with this quote, from Dogma and Preaching, p.38: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.”

 

[KjetilK]

No , the fact is that many DO use it. The word has a purpose and you keep trying to diminish it because you feel I should have singled out each denomination.

Yes, many DO use it. They are mostly evangelicals. And mostly American. And they DO NOT use it in its historical sense.

 

[Jubilarian]

Then feel free to point out where my reading is off, from the writing I posted. A heads up: I have a good knowledge of Ratzinger’ writings, having written my master’s thesis on his, and Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg’s, view on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist.

I can start you off with this quote, from Dogma and Preaching, p.38: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.”

Okay I’m ready. First off I see you didn’t address the triune portion of my comment.

The quote you gave would be similar to a Fundamentalist using 2 Tim 3:16 to prove you must only use the bible. Ratzinger’s words are accurate because the bible is unique as the sole normative importance of the church. It is unique and “sole”. There is no other bible for the church. Is Tdadition unique? Of course. These are the types of quotes so similar to Sola Scriptura advocates in that they pour the meaning they want into it.
From this sentence, I do not see Tradition being trumped or unequal… But I’m sure you have more.

 

[Jubilarian]

Yes, many DO use it. They are mostly evangelicals. And mostly American. And they DO NOT use it in its historical sense.

You’ve been going on about the word Protestant for awhile. Could you bring yourself to come out and just say that the word “Protestant” should be removed from the English language, or any language for that matter? Because that’s where your at.

 

[benjohnson]

You’ve been going on about the word Protestant for awhile. Could you bring yourself to come out and just say that the word “Protestant” should be removed from the English language, or any language for that matter? Because that’s where your at.

The word Protestant should be removed from discussion when contrasting various churches that vary in practice on the very topic you’re discussing.

Frankly, in my opinion, your continued use of such a broad term after being admonished indicates either willfull ignorance or churlish polemics.

 

[Jubilarian]

The word Protestant should be removed from discussion when contrasting various churches that vary in practice on the very topic you’re discussing.

Frankly, in my opinion, your continued use of such a broad term after being admonished indicates either willfull ignorance or churlish polemics.

Not necessary. When Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists etc stop calling themselves Protestants, you might be in a better position to make such a statement. The real problem is your fear of the word. With tons of denominations, its amazing how much commonality is actually shared .Of course that aspect has been avoided.

 

[benjohnson]

Not necessary. When Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists etc stop calling themselves Protestants, you might be in a better position to make such a statement. The real problem is your fear of the word. With tons of denominations, its amazing how much commonality is actually shared .Of course that aspect has been avoided.

Apparently my ‘or’ wasn’t exclusive.

 

[crai7]

They don’t. They are equal because they flow from the same source.

They cannot be equal since verbal traditions are too easily altered. Written sources are more reliable - especially the bible - it is the most reliable of the ancient texts. See Josh McDowell.

 

[KjetilK]

Apparently my ‘or’ wasn’t exclusive.

Not surprising.

Not necessary. When Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists etc stop calling themselves Protestants, you might be in a better position to make such a statement. The real problem is your fear of the word. With tons of denominations, its amazing how much commonality is actually shared .Of course that aspect has been avoided.

And this is the problem. You just keep going on, spouting ignorance. There isn’t ‘much commonality’ between the various ‘Protestant denominations.’ And most of what exist of commonalities are almost all shared by Roman Catholics too - the Incarnation, the Trinity, etc. Are you a Protestant too?

Take Lutheranism, for instance. In the main text of the Augsburg Confession (article 1-21) there are many condemnations. And who is mentioned most? Not Roman Catholics (who is not mentioned once by name) but the Anabaptists.

The fact is that the level of unity that you suppose in your usage of ‘Protestant’ have never existed. There are vast theological differences, not only in opinions but in method.

The Lutheran Reformation was a Catholic Reformation. The goal was to purge the Church of certain abuses. The first part of the Augsburg Confession (article 1-21) is an apologia, showing that the Lutherans are Catholic. The second part of the confession (article 22-28) takes up certain abuses to be corrected: the practice of not offering the chalice to the congregation (which is NOT based on a rejection of the doctrine of concomitance); the refusal to marry priests; certain practices surrounding Mass;* certain practices surrounding confession; certain practices surrounding the distinction of meats (during fasting and abstinence); monastic vows; and the mixture of ecclesiastical and secular power amongst certain bishops (or Prince-Bishops).

The point is that Lutheranism and Anabaptism is so vastly different they shouldn’t be put in the same category. And the fact is that they have never been.

• For some good points on why Roman Catholics and Lutherans talked past each other on this (and other) question(s) you can read two articles by German Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg; “The Confessio Augustana as a Catholic Confession and a Basis for the Unity of the Church” in The Role of the Augsburg Confession: Catholic and Lutheran Views, ed., Joseph A. Burgess (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1980): 27-45 (esp. 33-35) and “Ecumenical Tasks in Relationship to the Roman Catholic Church” (Pro Ecclesia 15): 161-171 (esp. 171). You can also check out a book American Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson; , vol. 2: Systematic Theology**The Works of God (Oxford University Press 2001): 211-249 (esp. 215-220.266-267). Or you can just read my master’s thesis.