Protestants DENY Tradition?

[Isaiah45_9]

In this case tradition.

Ben’s referring to [T]radition. As you say tradition it can easily be discipline

 

[Jubilarian]

Ben’s referring to [T]radition. As you say tradition it can easily be discipline

Yes, I’m aware of that, thank you. However a discussion arose about marriage, and I stated that there is a tradition of celibacy in th CC, not in Protestant denominations though.

 

[clem456]

Please read the following and see that celibacy before ordination is referred to as a tradition, in a serious way I might add.

Did I dispute that celibacy is referred to as a tradition?
This is what I posted:

Originally Posted by clem456
Celibacy is also a vocation. A person is called to it “for the sake of the kingdom”.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb72.htm

The Church has recognized this value in regard to the priesthood.
It seems to me it is proper to recognize that celibacy is more than a tradition, although traditions are associated with it.

You did not include the link you meant to post.
Maybe you can pair it with JP2’s link above which speaks about celibacy as a vocation.

 

[Jubilarian]

Did I dispute that celibacy is referred to as a tradition?
This is what I posted:

You did not include the link you meant to post.
Maybe you can pair it with JP2’s link above which speaks about celibacy as a vocation.

No doubt, I have no argument with celibacy as a vocation , my point is that it is referred to as a tradition as well as you can see in the link.

 

[benjohnson]

Start a campaign to ban the word “Protestant” entirely. Why has the word lost its usage?

The words has very little meaning when used as you have done when discussing individual theological differences between churches or communions.

Lutherans have shown you that we don’t “DENY tradition” - so I suppose we Lutherans could very well sit back and watch in amusement as we don’t meet your very own definition of Protestant.

 

[crai7]

My question is what traditions do Protestants deny that are not compatible with their view of scripture alone. Just saying you don’t deny tradition in general avoids the question.

For instance: 1.) The frequency and intensity of devotion to Mary is not considered reflective of scripture. 2.) The modern form of the Rosary is another example; while the older forms would have been considered acceptable as they directly reflected scripture - especially the earliest version which only contained ‘Our Fathers’.

 

[Jubilarian]

The words has very little meaning when used as you have done when discussing individual theological differences between churches or communions.

Lutherans have shown you that we don’t “DENY tradition” - so I suppose we Lutherans could very well sit back and watch in amusement as we don’t meet your very own definition of Protestant.

Scripture is the final authority for Lutherans according to the Council of Trent. Is that correct?

 

[clem456]

For instance: 1.) The frequency and intensity of devotion to Mary is not considered reflective of scripture. 2.) The modern form of the Rosary is another example; while the older forms would have been considered acceptable as they directly reflected scripture - especially the earliest version which only contained ‘Our Fathers’.

Attending church services can be seen in the same light. Why attend services and sing hymns, why have communal prayer for and with one another, why go to bible studies, why do Christian service, if one can simply communicate with Christ all day long?

In the heart of the Christian lies the answer. Surely some pray the rosary in an idolatrous way, some read scripture in an idolatrous way. That doesn’t mean that devotion to either is inherently idolatrous, and it doesn’t mean that devotion to Mary is “not considered reflective of scripture”.

 

[benjohnson]

Scripture is the final authority for Lutherans according to the Council of Trent. Is that correct?

Not as a singular authority, but one that regulates the other authorities.

“We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3)

“No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

 

[Jubilarian]

Not as a singular authority, but one that regulates the other authorities.

“We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3)

“No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

“Not as a singular authority?” Elaborate on that.

 

[benjohnson]

“Not as a singular authority?” Elaborate on that.

There’s other authorities - tradition, teaching, practice, the creeds, writings like the Didache and early church-fathers, even our Hymns and confessions as a right-reflection of scripture.

 

[Jubilarian]

There’s other authorities - tradition, teaching, practice, the creeds, writings like the Didache and early church-fathers, even our Hymns and confessions as a right-reflection of scripture.

These authorities are not equal with the authority of scripture, right?

 

[KjetilK]

Start a campaign to ban the word “Protestant” entirely. Why has the word lost its usage?

Because it is no longer used in its original meaning - the protest against the Holy Roman Empire’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms.

Now it is used as a word combining every Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, which includes traditions that are mutually exclusive, such as Lutheranism and Anabaptism. It has thus ceased to have any use. It no longer tells you anything about the person of whom it it used.

Case in point: The site you posted, comparing Orthodox, Roman Catholic and ‘Protestant’ teachings. I could hardly find anything there that even slightly resembled the teaching found in the Augsburg Confession or any particular Church teaching it. As benjohnson puts it:

The words has very little meaning when used as you have done when discussing individual theological differences between churches or communions.

Lutherans have shown you that we don’t “DENY tradition” - so I suppose we Lutherans could very well sit back and watch in amusement as we don’t meet your very own definition of Protestant.

 

[KjetilK]

Scripture is the final authority for Lutherans according to the Council of Trent. Is that correct?

THIS is the problem. If you want to find out what Lutherans teach, read the Augsburg Confession (and perhaps its Apology).

There’s other authorities - tradition, teaching, practice, the creeds, writings like the Didache and early church-fathers, even our Hymns and confessions as a right-reflection of scripture.

These authorities are not equal with the authority of scripture, right?

The interesting thing is that the traditional Lutheran position - that Scripture is the highest norm, the norm which norms all other norms but which is not itself normed (norma norman non normata) - and that Tradition, i.e. other norms, such as the Creeds, practices, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. are norms normed by Scripture (norma normata) - is the teaching you find in Dei Vebum, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. It is also the position of Pope Benedict XVI (both before and after becoming pope), as we see in his book Dogma and Preaching (Ignatius Press 2011), pp.26-39, and in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini.

You seems seriously out of touch on your own Church’s teaching.

 

[Jubilarian]

Because it is no longer used in its original meaning - the protest against the Holy Roman Empire’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms.

Now it is used as a word combining every Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, which includes traditions that are mutually exclusive, such as Lutheranism and Anabaptism. It has thus ceased to have any use. It no longer tells you anything about the person of whom it it used.

Case in point: The site you posted, comparing Orthodox, Roman Catholic and ‘Protestant’ teachings. I could hardly find anything there that even slightly resembled the teaching found in the Augsburg Confession or any particular Church teaching it. As benjohnson puts it:

I will say this again. Eastern Orthodox are not Protestant. Search the web to find Eastern Orthodox being called Protestants, it isn’t there. Moreover, it is the problem of Protestantism itself with its thousands of denominations that make a definitive classification difficult for you. There was a time, not to long ago in which the word Protestant was sufficient for understanding.

 

[KjetilK]

I will say this again. Eastern Orthodox are not Protestant. Search the web to find Eastern Orthodox being called Protestants, it isn’t there.

Are you completely incapable of reading? Where did I, in the post you are quoting, say that the Eastern Orthodox are Protestants?

Moreover, it is the problem of Protestantism itself with its thousands of denominations that make a definitive classification difficult for you. There was a time, not to long ago in which the word Protestant was sufficient for understanding.

But that is the problem. ‘Protestantism’ isn’t ONE tradition that has somehow been splintered up. Lutherans, for instance, have never ever been in communion with anabaptists. But if they once were, so what?

Take the Pentacostals. They broke off from the Methodists, who broke off from the Church of England? Is that the Church of England’s fault? Is it a problem for the Church of England? Why is it a ‘problem’ for me, as a Lutheran in the Church of Norway, that I do not share the same teaching as some Church or communion who broke off from my Church, yet it is NOT a problem for the Roman Catholic Church that there exists Churches or communions that broke off from her (such as, for example, the SSPX, the Utrecht communion or the PNCC)?

 

[Jubilarian]

THIS is the problem. If you want to find out what Lutherans teach, read the Augsburg Confession (and perhaps its Apology).

The interesting thing is that the traditional Lutheran position - that Scripture is the highest norm, the norm which norms all other norms but which is not itself normed (norma norman non normata) - and that Tradition, i.e. other norms, such as the Creeds, practices, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. are norms normed by Scripture (norma normata) - is the teaching you find in Dei Vebum, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. It is also the position of Pope Benedict XVI (both before and after becoming pope), as we see in his book Dogma and Preaching (Ignatius Press 2011), pp.26-39, and in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini.

You seems seriously out of touch on your own Church’s teaching.

Catchy, but not accurate. I’ve said time and again that my original thread question was from a Catholic perspective, as many questions are on a Catholic forum. If Tradition is not equal to scripture, then from a Catholic viewpoint you are are denying the authority of Tradition, and on a different level, tradition.

 

[KjetilK]

Catchy, but not accurate. I’ve said time and again that my original thread question was from a Catholic perspective, as many questions are on a Catholic forum are. If Tradition is not equal to scripture, then from a Catholic viewpoint you are are denying the authority of Tradition, and on a different level, tradition.

 

[Jubilarian]

Are you completely incapable of reading? Where did I, in the post you are quoting, say that the Eastern Orthodox are Protestants?

But that is the problem. ‘Protestantism’ isn’t ONE tradition that has somehow been splintered up. Lutherans, for instance, have never ever been in communion with anabaptists. But if they once were, so what?

Take the Pentacostals. They broke off from the Methodists, who broke off from the Church of England? Is that the Church of England’s fault? Is it a problem for the Church of England? Why is it a ‘problem’ for me, as a Lutheran in the Church of Norway, that I do not share the same teaching as some Church or communion who broke off from my Church, yet it is NOT a problem for the Roman Catholic Church that there exists Churches or communions that broke off from her (such as, for example, the SSPX, the Utrecht communion or the PNCC)?

No need to get nasty. Attempts have been to them lump them together on this thread.

 

[KjetilK]

No need to get nasty. Attempts have been to them lump them together on this thread.

Well, I did try to ‘lump them together’ when you gave me a definition of ‘Protestant’ that actually included them. Then you started back-peddling by adding ‘not including the Orthodox.’ I let it slide, but the fact is that you didn’t actually give any adequate reason to add that.

I never said the Orthodox was Protestants. What I did say is that YOUR definition of ‘Protestant’ (or at least the one you gave then) was phrased in such a way that it would include the Orthodox. (Basically it was ‘those who protested the Roman Catholic Church,’ which is actually NOT the historical definition, as shown by Jon.) Then you decided to paint yourself further into the corner by changing your definition to ‘connected to the Reformation’ which is so loose it makes Pope Leo X and Cardinal Cajetan into Protestants.

Note that I have not said that the Orthodox, Pope Leo X or Cardinal Cajetan are ‘Protestants.’ What I have done is to show you that they would have to be if one were to follow the logic of your ever changing definitions.