Protestants DENY Tradition?

[Jubilarian]

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.

And I said back that I didn’t think that I would have to clarify the fact that Orthodox are not Protestants in the general usage of that word. I inserted the Reformation to make a distinction between the two.

Just writing the word “back peddling” means nothing. What means something is that compared to the Catholic view that sacred Tradition is equal to Sacred Scripture, there is an overall denial in Protestantism of Tradition having authority rising to the level of scripture.

 

[benjohnson]

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.

That doesn’t make sense even from a Catholic perspective - that the presence of a hierarchy of authority doesn’t mean that you deny the lower forms. Certainly Catholics hold that the Pope has immediate universal justification - but that doesn’t give a Catholic the right to ignore his Bishop.

 

[benjohnson]

And I said back that I didn’t think that I would have to clarify the fact that Orthodox are not Protestants in the general usage of that word. I inserted the Reformation to make a distinction between the two.

I’m curious where Union of Utrecht churches would fit in your scheme - as by your current definition, it would not be “Protestant” even though they’re in communion with the Anglican church.

 

[benjohnson]

From Metropolitan Timothy(Kallistos) Ware:

“Orthodox, while reverencing this inheritance from the past, are also well aware that not everything received from the past is of equal value. Among the various elements of Tradition, a unique pre-eminence belongs to the Bible, to the Creed, to the doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: these things the Orthodox accept as something absolute and unchanging, something which cannot be cancelled or revised. The other parts of Tradition do not have quite the same authority. The decrees of Jassy or Jerusalem do not stand on the same level as the Nicene Creed, nor do the writings of an Athanasius, or a Symeon the New Theologian, occupy the same position as the Gospel of St. John.”

 

[KjetilK]

And I said back that I didn’t think that I would have to clarify the fact that Orthodox are not Protestants in the general usage of that word. I inserted the Reformation to make a distinction between the two.

Just writing the word “back peddling” means nothing. What means something is that compared to the Catholic view that sacred Tradition is equal to Sacred Scripture, there is an overall denial in Protestantism of Tradition having authority rising to the level of scripture.

But the Roman Catholic Church denies that Tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, and Lutherans don’t reject the authority of Tradition. Again: read Dei Verbum and Pope Benedict’s Verbum Domini. And read the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.

 

[Jubilarian]

But the Roman Catholic Church denies that Tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, and Lutherans don’t reject the authority of Tradition. Again: read Dei Verbum and Pope Benedict’s Verbum Domini. And read the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.

You must read the Cathechism of the CC.

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

If you don’t except this, you would be denying it, correct? I’ve read the Dei Verbum -nothing contradictory there., but I’m not sure why you think a Catholic would look to the Augsburg Confession.

 

[Jubilarian]

I’m curious where Union of Utrecht churches would fit in your scheme - as by your current definition, it would not be “Protestant” even though they’re in communion with the Anglican church.

Its not my “scheme”. You have the internet at your disposal. See if you can find Orthodox being called Protestant. You are entitled to take on your own personal view of course.

 

[KjetilK]

I’ve read the Dei Verbum -nothing contradictory there., but I’m not sure why you think a Catholic would look to the Augsburg Confession.

First, my point about reading the Augsburg Confession was that you ought to read THAT if you want to know what Lutheranism teaches on, well, anything. You don’t read the Council of Trent to know what Lutheranism teaches.

Second, in Dei Verbum preference is given to Scripture. That doesn’t mean that Tradition is ignored. And neither is it ignored by Lutherans. We hold fast to tradition, to that which has been taught everywhere, always, and by all.

We see the same in Verbum Domini, and in Dogma and Preaching (pp.26-39) Ratzinger ranks four standards in hierarchical order: Scripture; the Creeds and Councils; the Magisterium; and the concrete, contextual faith of the faithful.

 

[Jubilarian]

First, my point about reading the Augsburg Confession was that you ought to read THAT if you want to know what Lutheranism teaches on, well, anything. You don’t read the Council of Trent to know what Lutheranism teaches.

Second, in Dei Verbum preference is given to Scripture. That doesn’t mean that Tradition is ignored. And neither is it ignored by Lutherans. We hold fast to tradition, to that which has been taught everywhere, always, and by all.

We see the same in Verbum Domini, and in Dogma and Preaching (pp.26-39) Ratzinger ranks four standards in hierarchical order: Scripture; the Creeds and Councils; the Magisterium; and the concrete, contextual faith of the faithful.

Yes its always a good suggestion to read the beliefs of others. Did you do the same and read the Catechism I posted? You made no reference to it, considering it clearly lays out the equality of scripture and Tradition.

Also, could you post the the “hierarchical order” if you have it.

 

[KjetilK]

Its not my “scheme”. You have the internet at your disposal. See if you can find Orthodox being called Protestant. You are entitled to take on your own personal view of course.

You seriously need to start reading the posts here. No one said that the Orthodox was Protestants. What I did say, however, was that the logical outcome of your first definition of Protestant (‘those who protest the Catholic Church’) would make the Orthodox into Protestants. They do protest the Roman Catholic Church on issues who are also of a doctrinal nature. And you second definition of Protestant (‘being connected to the Reformation’) would make Pope Leo X and Cardinal Cajetan into Protestants. That is a fact of logic.

And when you give a definition, you cannot just start adding things to it ad hoc. If you have to say that ‘Protestants are those who protest the Catholic Church, except [insert Church],’ then the problem lies in the definition itself.

If I was given the task to define who in the world are German, and my definition was ‘those who like bratwurst,’ then I couldn’t ‘fix’ the problem of that too wide definition by constantly adding those I didn’t want it to include. I couldn’t just say: ‘Well, Germans are those who like bratwurst, except Americans, Swedes, etc.’

The problem here is that you have a wrong definition of the word Protestant, and you insist on using it even though it is both too broad, but also because it doesn’t even include those you think it include (because of its useless broadness). The reason is probably because you have never meat any, or many, Lutherans but have been told by some 103rd rate Catholic apologist that ‘those Protestants aren’t even in agreement, man,’ as if that means anything.

Again, answer this question: If it is a problem for, say, the Church of England, that the methodists broke off from her, and the Pentecostals from the methodists, why isn’t it a problem for the Roman Catholic Church that the Union of Utrecht broke off from her?

Please try to actually engage with the points made. Try to follow the logic.

 

[KjetilK]

Yes its always a good suggestion to read the beliefs of others.

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.

Did you do the same and read the Catechism I posted?

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

You made no reference to it, considering it clearly lays out the equality of scripture and Tradition.

Also, could you post the the “hierarchical order” if you have it.

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.”

 

[Jubilarian]

You seriously need to start reading the posts here. No one said that the Orthodox was Protestants. What I did say, however, was that the logical outcome of your first definition of Protestant (‘those who protest the Catholic Church’) would make the Orthodox into Protestants. They do protest the Roman Catholic Church on issues who are also of a doctrinal nature. And you second definition of Protestant (‘being connected to the Reformation’) would make Pope Leo X and Cardinal Cajetan into Protestants. That is a fact of logic.

And when you give a definition, you cannot just start adding things to it ad hoc. If you have to say that ‘Protestants are those who protest the Catholic Church, except [insert Church],’ then the problem lies in the definition itself.

If I was given the task to define who in the world are German, and my definition was ‘those who like bratwurst,’ then I couldn’t ‘fix’ the problem of that too wide definition by constantly adding those I didn’t want it to include. I couldn’t just say: ‘Well, Germans are those who like bratwurst, except Americans, Swedes, etc.’

The problem here is that you have a wrong definition of the word Protestant, and you insist on using it even though it is both too broad, but also because it doesn’t even include those you think it include (because of its useless broadness). The reason is probably because you have never meat any, or many, Lutherans but have been told by some 103rd rate Catholic apologist that ‘those Protestants aren’t even in agreement, man,’ as if that means anything.

Again, answer this question: If it is a problem for, say, the Church of England, that the methodists broke off from her, and the Pentecostals from the methodists, why isn’t it a problem for the Roman Catholic Church that the Union of Utrecht broke off from her?

Please try to actually engage with the points made. Try to follow the logic.

It’s unfortunate that you seem to want to jump into my ljfe and assume what I’ve done. I will tell you straight out that I was PROTESTANT for over 15 years. No one I met ever shyed away from word Protestant or thought the meaning was to broad to encompass them. I understand that you can find holes in the usage of the word.

I get your point that all denominations are different and should be addressed accordingly. My point was that the common thread from a Catholic standpoint was that Tradition does not hold the same authority with denominations identifying themselves as Protestant. Yes, I did include (t)radiation as well at times . Since I made that mistake I was contrite about it.

 

[sallybutler]

So, are some now denying the traditional meaning of Protestant (any denomination and/or its offspring that descended from the Reformation period)?

 

[Jubilarian]

So, are some now denying the traditional meaning of Protestant (any denomination and/or its offspring that descended from the Reformation period)?

That seems to rearing its head, even though its sarcasm… More importantly is the issue of Tradition in connection with “Protestantism” (whoops). Consider the following:

Two Traditions generally agreed to be prime examples of infallible declarations from the Papacy. The first declares that Mary was preserved from any sin what-so-ever for the entirety of her life, from the point of her conception, and the second declares that Mary was taken up into heaven at the conclusion of her life on earth (they are not real sure she died). Any Catholic who doubts or rejects these Traditions, is considered to have fallen away from the true church, and the true Christian faith, at the risk of his salvation, since they are clearly rebelling against the presumed infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium.

 

[JonNC]

So, are some now denying the traditional meaning of Protestant (any denomination and/or its offspring that descended from the Reformation period)?

That’s more the contemporary meaning. I gave a definition based on the history and origin of the term.
There is nothing wrong with the definition you gave, so long as it is used as a mere category
of communions, traditions, and denominations, and not as a basis to describe or assign teaching. Baptists and Lutherans may be both considered protestant, but the teachings are vastly different.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

That’s more the contemporary meaning. I gave a definition based on the history and origin of the term.
There is nothing wrong with the definition you gave, so long as it is used as a mere category
of communions, traditions, and denominations, and not as a basis to describe or assign teaching. Baptists and Lutherans may be both considered protestant, but the teachings are vastly different.

Jon

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.

 

[JonNC]

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.

And Lutherans only deny that it should be a doctrine, binding the conscience of the believer to it, which was the same position of the Catholic Church on the Tradition up until 160 years ago.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

On this one, we aren’t the ones that changed.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

And Lutherans only deny that it should be a doctrine, binding the conscience of the believer to it, which was the same position of the Catholic Church on the Tradition up until 160 years ago.

Simply substitute the word doctrine for Tradition. A denial is occurring from the Catholic perspective. This is what I have said from the beginning.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Simply substitute the word doctrine for Tradition. A denial is occurring from the Catholic perspective. This is what I have said from the beginning.

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.

 

[KjetilK]

I will tell you straight out that I was PROTESTANT for over 15 years.

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

No one I met ever shyed away from word Protestant or thought the meaning was to broad to encompass them.

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

I get your point that all denominations are different and should be addressed accordingly. My point was that the common thread from a Catholic standpoint was that Tradition does not hold the same authority with denominations identifying themselves as Protestant.

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.