Protestants DENY Tradition?

[adf417]

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.

Welcome to CAF crai7

Your assertion above has one glaring problem. Jesus did not leave us with any writings and it was many years before the apostles began any of their writings. All Christianity had to begin with was verbal Traditions.

Peace!!!

 

[KjetilK]

Welcome to CAF crai7

Your assertion above has one glaring problem. Jesus did not leave us with any writings and it was many years before the apostles began any of their writings. All Christianity had to begin with was verbal Traditions.

And not only that - we see from many cultures that the verbal cultures weren’t the least bit less reliable. Often more.

In fact I would say that we tend to have less knowledge now, then before. People just ‘Google it.’

 

[KjetilK]

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

I ignored it, because it wasn’t reflective of Ratzinger’s position. He has a fourfold distinction, and he sees them as reliant on each other, yet understood hierarchially.

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.

Again, can you show me where I was wrong in my reading of Ratzinger? You said: “I disagree with your reading of Ratzinger’s writtings.” Then please show me, with reference to his writings, were I went wrong in my exegesis.

 

[yateanieys]

Noting the thread title and length, I’m quite surprised no one has touched on indulgences yet. The Ninety-Five Theses, anyone? :coffeeread:

 

[Per_Crucem]

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.

Irrelevant to the point, though. I didn’t argue that St. Thomas would not have adhered to the present dogma of the church simply out of obedience. However, the fact that he didn’t, is evidence that it wasn’t always dogma and that there was freedom for a number of opinions on the matter. ISTM, if it were apostolic dogma accepted always, everywhere and by all, that wouldn’t have been the case.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Welcome to CAF crai7

Your assertion above has one glaring problem. Jesus did not leave us with any writings and it was many years before the apostles began any of their writings. All Christianity had to begin with was verbal Traditions.

Peace!!!

To a point. However, this is also untrue, since Jesus is the author of Scripture. He already had given the OT, and gave the bulk of the NT within 30 years of His ascension.

 

[crai7]

Welcome to CAF crai7

Your assertion above has one glaring problem. Jesus did not leave us with any writings and it was many years before the apostles began any of their writings. All Christianity had to begin with was verbal Traditions.

Peace!!!

1.) Jesus disciples were the original, first-hand witnesses, they drew from their own memories - they did not rely on verbal traditions from others; I would therefore not classify their writings as verbally transmitted tradition. The startling thing is the high level of agreement between the gospels. According to Josh McDowell “…the conservative dating for the Gospel of Mark is between A.D. 50-60, with more liberal scholars placing it around A.D. 70.”

2.) The letters - for instance Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians - were working documents used to communicate essential doctrines within the early church. They provide a view of how the early church operated.

3.) Traditions that have appeared far later on - centuries later in many cases - AND clearly **clash ** with the scriptures should therefore be questioned.

What do I mean? For instance the alterations to the Rosary are an interesting example of the differences between acceptable tradition and unacceptable tradition in the light of scripture. The use of the Rosary is AN ACCEPTABLE TRADITION - at least the earlier versions of the Rosary that is (the Paternoster for instance) since it aligned with Jesus request to pray the Our Father, and his request to pray frequently. So CATHOLIC PRIESTS are doing their jobs in that respect - since they pray the LOTH for instance throughout the day. Even the addition of the NICENE CREED and GLORY BE are aligned with scripture.

What is NOT aligned with scripture is the addition of HAIL MARY at HIGH FREQUENCY - in other words, so much attention is given to May that one wonders who one is worshipping - God the Father or Mary?

While of course the initial versions of the Hail Mary came from scripture (ignoring what happened in the 16h century after Trent), it clearly was not a prayer, but an angel making a statement about who she was.

Did God the Father and Jesus Christ really want us to spend so much energy and time on Mary, or is that just human fancy?

leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

 

[Jubilarian]

I ignored it, because it wasn’t reflective of Ratzinger’s position. He has a fourfold distinction, and he sees them as reliant on each other, yet understood hierarchially.

Whats the fourth? In addition, the fact that they are “reliant” on each other means does not diminish equality.

Again, can you show me where I was wrong in my reading of Ratzinger? You said: “I disagree with your reading of Ratzinger’s writtings.” Then please show me, with reference to his writings, were I went wrong in my exegesis.

Yes, I did. His writings reveal that the bible is a “solo” book and how essential scripture is to the church. How are the words you asked me to read showing me that Tradition is less than scripture? Like I said, God is the head of Christ in a functional hierarchy but Christ is equal to Father as God. Scripture and Tradition are equal but they have unique distinctions.

 

[Jubilarian]

Not surprising.

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 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?

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; Systematic Theology, vol. 2: The Works of God (Oxford University Press 2001): 211-249 (esp. 215-220.266-267). Or you can just read my master’s thesis.

“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?”

Your words are quite foolish. Is Sola Scriptura common in Protestant denominations along with private interpretation?

I AM NOT questioning the doctrines or practices that ARE shared, just the glaring ones that are not. Are you able to comprehend that? So, asking me if I’m Protestant based on topics that are in common is shockingly ignorant.

 

[benjohnson]

Your words are quite foolish. Is Sola Scriptura common in Protestant denominations along with private interpretation?

What you have described is alien to the Lutheran church. Therefore your codicil laden definition of “protestant” is still woefully flawed.

Are you able to comprehend that? So, asking me if I’m Protestant based on topics that are in common is shockingly ignorant.

Almost any fundamental question is reasonable given you seem to be woefully ignorant on various aspects of your own professed communion by using married priests as an ipso-facto indication of missing tradition.

 

[KjetilK]

Whats the fourth? In addition, the fact that they are “reliant” on each other means does not diminish equality.

That you actually have to ask this question is quite telling. First, I have referenced these four points many times already, and they are easily discernible from the book I linked to (pp.26-39) . This shows quite clearly that you don’t actually bother to read the posts that you respond to, and you haven’t read the pages from Ratzinger. Yet you seem capable to disagree with my reading of them. That is quite impressive.

Ratzinger presents us with four standards, which are all dependent on each other, but with a primacy given to Scripture. The fourth is the life of the Church in its liturgical, parochial and diocesan context.

Yes, I did. His writings reveal that the bible is a “solo” book and how essential scripture is to the church. How are the words you asked me to read showing me that Tradition is less than scripture? Like I said, God is the head of Christ in a functional hierarchy but Christ is equal to Father as God. Scripture and Tradition are equal but they have unique distinctions.

I did not ask you if you disagree with my points (or rather, with Ratzinger’s points). I asked you to show where my reading of Ratzinger went wrong. The book is right there. It’s 14 easily read pages (pp.26-39).

What Ratzinger presents there is basically what Lutheranism also points out. Not that Tradition is wrong, but that its normativity is secondary to that of Scripture. I also urge you to read Wolfhart Pannenberg’s excellent article on Luther’s Scripture Principle, and its problems: “The Crisis of the Scripture Principle,” in Basic Questions in Theology (Collected essays, vol. I, trans., G.H. Kehm. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1970): 1-14. Or, if you prefer the German original: “Die Krise des Schriftprinzips,” in Grundfragen systematischer Theologie (Gesammelte Aufsätze. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967): 11-21. Or check out the first part of his Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (in English or in German).

Note that Lutheranism is NOT about following Luther, and never have been, even though many Roman Catholic apologists seem to be convinced of it. The primacy lies in Scripture, with Tradition as its lense. THAT is the Lutheran position.

I AM NOT questioning the doctrines or practices that ARE shared, just the glaring ones that are not. Are you able to comprehend that?

It seems I have to use capital letters for you to understand me:

THE MANY CHURCHES YOU ARE TOSSING TOGETHER UNDER THE SAME LABEL HAVE MANY OF THEM NEVER, EVER BEEN UNITED. LUTHERANS AND ANABAPTISTS CANNOT BE CATEGORISED UNDER THE SAME NAME, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. YOU ARE TOSSING TOGETHER A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE UNITED, AND THEN YOU ‘POINT OUT’ HOW DISUNITED THEY ARE.

So, asking me if I’m Protestant based on topics that are in common is shockingly ignorant.

No, it is just plain use of logic, something you have shown no comprehension of.

So what definition of Protestant are you now operating under? ‘Those I want to be Protestants,’ perhaps?

If you produce a definition, and it turns out that this definition is too broad, and includes people it ought not include (for instance Pope Leo X or Cardinal Cajetan), then you shouldn’t be surprised when people point it out. The solution is not to say ‘but that is not how other people use it’ or ‘but I don’t want it to include them.’ The solution is to change the definition. Or just take each denomination or Church on its own terms. Which would be the honest and useful thing to do.

 

[benjohnson]

Whats the fourth? In addition, the fact that they are “reliant” on each other means does not diminish equality.

Yes, I did. His writings reveal that the bible is a “solo” book and how essential scripture is to the church. How are the words you asked me to read showing me that Tradition is less than scripture? Like I said, God is the head of Christ in a functional hierarchy but Christ is equal to Father as God. Scripture and Tradition are equal but they have unique distinctions.

I’ve spent a bit of time with Pope Benedict XVI’s writings, and he’s remarkably clear and concise. How you manage this interpretation and yet missed the numeration and order of the authorities he was writing about is… well… astounding frankly.

I’m very happy for you that you found the Catholic church and hope your rely in it’s interpretations of Scripture fully and completely.

If you carried out the same understanding ability as you are demonstrating now in your private interpretation of the Bible it must have been terrifyingly and chaotic.

 

[sallybutler]

That you actually have to ask this question is quite telling. First, I have referenced these four points many times already, and they are easily discernible from the book I linked to (pp.26-39) . This shows quite clearly that you don’t actually bother to read the posts that you respond to, and you haven’t read the pages from Ratzinger. Yet you seem capable to disagree with my reading of them. That is quite impressive.

Ratzinger presents us with four standards, which are all dependent on each other, but with a primacy given to Scripture. The fourth is the life of the Church in its liturgical, parochial and diocesan context.

I did not ask you if you disagree with my points (or rather, with Ratzinger’s points). I asked you to show where my reading of Ratzinger went wrong. The book is right there. It’s 14 easily read pages (pp.26-39).

What Ratzinger presents there is basically what Lutheranism also points out. Not that Tradition is wrong, but that its normativity is secondary to that of Scripture. I also urge you to read Wolfhart Pannenberg’s excellent article on Luther’s Scripture Principle, and its problems: “The Crisis of the Scripture Principle,” in Basic Questions in Theology (Collected essays, vol. I, trans., G.H. Kehm. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1970): 1-14. Or, if you prefer the German original: “Die Krise des Schriftprinzips,” in Grundfragen systematischer Theologie (Gesammelte Aufsätze. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967): 11-21. Or check out the first part of his Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (in English or in German).

Note that Lutheranism is NOT about following Luther, and never have been, even though many Roman Catholic apologists seem to be convinced of it. The primacy lies in Scripture, with Tradition as its lense. THAT is the Lutheran position.

It seems I have to use capital letters for you to understand me:

THE MANY CHURCHES YOU ARE TOSSING TOGETHER UNDER THE SAME LABEL HAVE MANY OF THEM NEVER, EVER BEEN UNITED. LUTHERANS AND ANABAPTISTS CANNOT BE CATEGORISED UNDER THE SAME NAME, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. YOU ARE TOSSING TOGETHER A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE UNITED, AND THEN YOU ‘POINT OUT’ HOW DISUNITED THEY ARE.

No, it is just plain use of logic, something you have shown no comprehension of.

So what definition of Protestant are you now operating under? ‘Those I want to be Protestants,’ perhaps?

If you produce a definition, and it turns out that this definition is too broad, and includes people it ought not include (for instance Pope Leo X or Cardinal Cajetan), then you shouldn’t be surprised when people point it out. The solution is not to say ‘but that is not how other people use it’ or ‘but I don’t want it to include them.’ The solution is to change the definition. Or just take each denomination or Church on its own terms. Which would be the honest and useful thing to do.

Ok, now I’m confused. Are you saying that there is no difference between the RC & EC churches? If that is true, why aren’t you RC. If there is a difference, how is it defined? Is/was anything defined by how it is not RC? If it is, wouldn’t that be ‘protesting’ RC beliefs & practices?

 

[adf417]

1.) Jesus disciples were the original, first-hand witnesses, they drew from their own memories - they did not rely on verbal traditions from others; I would therefore not classify their writings as verbally transmitted tradition. The startling thing is the high level of agreement between the gospels. According to Josh McDowell “…the conservative dating for the Gospel of Mark is between A.D. 50-60, with more liberal scholars placing it around A.D. 70.”

Act chapter 15 is a clear example how this logic is flawed. If they were all on the same page in the sense you imply while they were still alive there would have been no need to call the council.

2.) The letters - for instance Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians - were working documents used to communicate essential doctrines within the early church. They provide a view of how the early church operated.

OK. not sure what this has to do with it.

3.) Traditions that have appeared far later on - centuries later in many cases - AND clearly **clash ** with the scriptures should therefore be questioned.

agreed

What do I mean? For instance the alterations to the Rosary are an interesting example of the differences between acceptable tradition and unacceptable tradition in the light of scripture. The use of the Rosary is AN ACCEPTABLE TRADITION - at least the earlier versions of the Rosary that is (the Paternoster for instance) since it aligned with Jesus request to pray the Our Father, and his request to pray frequently. So CATHOLIC PRIESTS are doing their jobs in that respect - since they pray the LOTH for instance throughout the day. Even the addition of the NICENE CREED and GLORY BE are aligned with scripture.

What is NOT aligned with scripture is the addition of HAIL MARY at HIGH FREQUENCY - in other words, so much attention is given to May that one wonders who one is worshipping - God the Father or Mary?

While of course the initial versions of the Hail Mary came from scripture (ignoring what happened in the 16h century after Trent), it clearly was not a prayer, but an angel making a statement about who she was.

Did God the Father and Jesus Christ really want us to spend so much energy and time on Mary, or is that just human fancy?

I think you are confusing [T]raditions with [t]raditions. You do know the hail Mary prayer is not mandatory, right?

Peace!!!

 

[Jubilarian]

]What you have described is alien to the Lutheran church. Therefore your codicil laden definition of “protestant” is still woefully flawed.

If your Lutheran doctrines don’t support Sola Sciptura, that’s okay. You can not deny that thousands of Protestant denominations hold to it it. To say that this does not constitute a common thread is odd.

Almost any fundamental question is reasonable given you seem to be woefully ignorant on various aspects of your own professed communion by using married priests as an ipso-facto indication of missing tradition.

How many times are you going to revisit an issue I clarified . Putting that aside, for some reason, even after I showed you one (t)radition like celibacy before ordination , you act as if many Protestant denominations are requiring this before graduating from seminary school or “reverend” on line certificate classes.

 

[Jubilarian]

I’ve spent a bit of time with Pope Benedict XVI’s writings, and he’s remarkably clear and concise. How you manage this interpretation and yet missed the numeration and order of the authorities he was writing about is… well… astounding frankly.

I’m very happy for you that you found the Catholic church and hope your rely in it’s interpretations of Scripture fully and completely.

If you carried out the same understanding ability as you are demonstrating now in your private interpretation of the Bible it must have been terrifyingly and chaotic.

You’ve drawn your own conclusions from the Popes words. Writing a thesis does not mean you have attained absolute perfection from material. I also resent your continual negative characterisation of me and my understanding of CC doctrine. You are far from an expert my friend.

 

[benjohnson]

You’ve drawn your own conclusions from the Popes words. Writing a thesis does not mean you have attained absolute perfection from material. I also resent your continual negative characterisation of me and my understanding of CC doctrine. You are far from an expert my friend.

Oh! I’m not an expert!

But I will say that I at least have the ability to understand who is writing what in a three-person conversation.

Father KjetilK is the one who wrote his thesis - it’s quite well researched, with excellent footnotes with an orderly layout. His conclusions are very reasonable.

I know based on the reading comprehension in evidence, I’m initially going to trust his straightforward and defensible reading of Pope Benedict over yours.

However, if you care to actually answer his question reasonably, I’m still very willing to be swayed.

 

[Jubilarian]

Oh! I’m not an expert!

But I will say that I at least have the ability to understand who is writing what in a three-person conversation.

Father KjetilK is the one who wrote his thesis - it’s quite well researched, with excellent footnotes with an orderly layout. His conclusions are very reasonable.

I know based on the reading comprehension in evidence, I’m initially going to trust his straightforward and defensible reading of Pope Benedict over yours.

However, if you care to actually answer his question reasonably, I’m still very willing to be swayed.

No your not an expert. It is not Catholic teaching that Tradition is less than scripture. I told you what is being said. I posted the Catechism of the church and you ignored it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

1.) Jesus disciples were the original, first-hand witnesses, they drew from their own memories - they did not rely on verbal traditions from others; I would therefore not classify their writings as verbally transmitted tradition. The startling thing is the high level of agreement between the gospels. According to Josh McDowell “…the conservative dating for the Gospel of Mark is between A.D. 50-60, with more liberal scholars placing it around A.D. 70.”

What about those who were second hand witnesses? Those who rely on the Apostles teaching them?

2.) The letters - for instance Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians - were working documents used to communicate essential doctrines within the early church. They provide a view of how the early church operated.

The same is true today, when my priest reads a letter from my bishop on Sunday for all to hear, I imagine Timothy doing the same for his flock with Paul’s writings.

3.) Traditions that have appeared far later on - centuries later in many cases - AND clearly **clash ** with the scriptures should therefore be questioned.

Sure, but what about those that have been questioned and accepted? Why keep rehashing it until the decision agrees with your position?

What do I mean? For instance the alterations to the Rosary are an interesting example of the differences between acceptable tradition and unacceptable tradition in the light of scripture. The use of the Rosary is AN ACCEPTABLE TRADITION - at least the earlier versions of the Rosary that is (the Paternoster for instance) since it aligned with Jesus request to pray the Our Father, and his request to pray frequently. So CATHOLIC PRIESTS are doing their jobs in that respect - since they pray the LOTH for instance throughout the day. Even the addition of the NICENE CREED and GLORY BE are aligned with scripture.

What is NOT aligned with scripture is the addition of HAIL MARY at HIGH FREQUENCY - in other words, so much attention is given to May that one wonders who one is worshipping - God the Father or Mary?

Who are you to decide what frequency is too high and how can you read into the hearts and minds of the reciter? One need not wonder about another’s intention unless they tell you something contrary explicitly, since it is between their soul and their God.

While of course the initial versions of the Hail Mary came from scripture (ignoring what happened in the 16h century after Trent), it clearly was not a prayer, but an angel making a statement about who she was.

Again, this is a limited definition of prayer that Catholics/Orthodox do not limit ourselves to. We use the word prayer to mean more than your limitation.

Did God the Father and Jesus Christ really want us to spend so much energy and time on Mary, or is that just human fancy?

leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

What would Luther or Calvin say?

 

[SyroMalankara]

However, the fact that he didn’t, is evidence that it wasn’t always dogma and that there was freedom for a number of opinions on the matter. ISTM, if it were apostolic dogma accepted always, everywhere and by all, that wouldn’t have been the case.

If “always, everywhere and by all” is undefined it becomes an ever moving goalpost.