Protestants DENY Tradition?

[KjetilK]

My words- Tradition , the foundation, CAN NOT be detached from the bible. Tradition opens scripture. You see inequality here? Reflect also on the word “synthesis”.

You are arguing against a straw man. Nowhere have I said that Tradition can be ‘detached’ from Scripture, whatever that means. That doesn’t mean Scripture doesn’t have primacy, the same way you cannot detach a state’s constitution from its juridical corpus, even though the constitution has primacy.

You have sadly presented a weak case.

To state so should mean that you have actually read the pages in question. Have you?

The material in question has been countered.

Where? Where is your reading of the relevant pages from Dogma and Preaching?

I have shown you Razingers words and the Catechism which both support the equal standing of both scripture and Tradition. Yes, Razingers put an emphasis on scripture, and rightfully so. He was even accused of heading towards Protestantism at one time. However, he always makes sure never to seperate Tradition from scripture. At no time does he say they are unequal. “Primacy” indicates importance .

Again with the straw man. Where have I said that he separates the two (or, rather, the four)?

That’s been done.

No, it hasn’t. I have referenced a specific work. You have not engaged with that work. Note that you have cited other things. But that is immaterial. I asked you to show me, from Ratzinger’s Dogma and Preaching, where my exegesis of his words are mistaken.

 

[crai7]

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.

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

agreed

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

Peace!!!

On the Rosary… sure I understand the Rosary itself is not mandatory; and in fact I personally have no issue with the use of the original pre-Mary Rosary as a means of keeping count.

But of course, I’m sure some Catholics may indeed believe it is mandatory; just as some Protestants think “Accepting Jesus into your heart” is mandatory - many even think it is scriptural - even though those exact words are not to be found in scripture anywhere and can be unhelpful as they tend to be framed in terms of ‘once-off’ conversion experience. I think it comes down to frequent repetition - say it often enough and people believe it is somehow essential to their faith.

 

[JonNC]

Sure, no problem with the original Rosary, or the use of beads for counting prayers. Yes I am aware that you ask Mary to pray for you and you are not praying to her… but I’m still not sure where this way of praying came from. I have not found any references to individuals asking the deceased to pray for them in either the OT or NT.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession references the dream 2 Maccabees 15:14 as a scriptural reference for the practice.

Jon

 

[adf417]

Sure, no problem with the original Rosary, or the use of beads for counting prayers. Yes I am aware that you ask Mary to pray for you and you are not praying to her… but I’m still not sure where this way of praying came from. I have not found any references to individuals asking the deceased to pray for them in either the OT or NT.

see Rev 5:8

 

[Jubilarian]

You are arguing against a straw man. Nowhere have I said that Tradition can be ‘detached’ from Scripture, whatever that means. That doesn’t mean Scripture doesn’t have primacy, the same way you cannot detach a state’s constitution from its juridical corpus, even though the constitution has primacy.

To state so should mean that you have actually read the pages in question. Have you?

Where? Where is your reading of the relevant pages from Dogma and Preaching?

Again with the straw man. Where have I said that he separates the two (or, rather, the four)?

No, it hasn’t. I have referenced a specific work. You have not engaged with that work. Note that you have cited other things. But that is immaterial. I asked you to show me, from Ratzinger’s Dogma and Preaching, where my exegesis of his words are mistaken.

I’ve asked you several times to post key words, phrases or paragraphs from Ratzinger but so far I got one. I correctly dismantled it but you didn’t agree.

How is it that you keep saying you are correct but have put forth little? Is Ratzinger contradicting the Catachism of the CC? You would say no- and so would I. That should tell you something.

 

[crai7]

see Rev 5:8

Yes know it well - but there is no indication that it is referring to saints in heaven rather than saints on earth. The prayers could very well be the prayers of the saints on earth. There isn’t really a wealth of direct scriptural references supporting it.

 

[adf417]

Yes know it well - but there is no indication that it is referring to saints in heaven rather than saints on earth. The prayers could very well be the prayers of the saints on earth. There isn’t really a wealth of direct scriptural references supporting it.

There is no indication of it referring either way…
Thank God for sacred Tradition!

Peace!!!

 

[Jubilarian]

Yes know it well - but there is no indication that it is referring to saints in heaven rather than saints on earth. The prayers could very well be the prayers of the saints on earth. There isn’t really a wealth of direct scriptural references supporting it.

Jesus talked to dead saints in heaven while he was on earth in Matt 17.

 

[crai7]

Jesus talked to dead saints in heaven while he was on earth in Matt 17.

You mean Matthew 17:3, where Moses and Elijah appeared and Jesus talked to them; that is quite a stretch… first of all Jesus is doing the praying - the Son of God - who knew Moses and Elijah before coming to earth, secondly the average Christian isn’t going to have the privelege of a saint appearing to them every time they pray to confirm they are actually in heaven, and lastly it is clear that Jesus was conversing with them face-to-face, not praying to them.

 

[crai7]

There is no indication of it referring either way…
Thank God for sacred Tradition!

Peace!!!

Okay so there are no clear bible verses to support this in other words. Surely such a practice should have been frequently and clearly espoused by Jesus, or at the very least reflected in the Apostles letters?

 

[crai7]

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession references the dream 2 Maccabees 15:14 as a scriptural reference for the practice.

Jon

Okay but now you are talking Apocrypha…

 

[JonNC]

Okay but now you are talking Apocrypha…

Sure, but it is part of the scriptural treasure of the Church. As Lutherans, we wouldn’t set doctrine by it, but it certainly provides great understanding and insight.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

You mean Matthew 17:3, where Moses and Elijah appeared and Jesus talked to them; that is quite a stretch… first of all Jesus is doing the praying - the Son of God - who knew Moses and Elijah before coming to earth, secondly the average Christian isn’t going to have the privelege of a saint appearing to them every time they pray to confirm they are actually in heaven, and lastly it is clear that Jesus was conversing with them face-to-face, not praying to them.

I said he TALKED with them , not prayed TO them. Jesus was a man, we are to imitate him. You can’t imply that just because Jesus did something we can’t do it. The fact is that Moses and Elijah knew of events on earth.

Why did you toss in that saints need to physically appear before us? And yes, Jesus is doing the praying, and saints were listening. Not a stretch at all.

 

[KjetilK]

Okay but now you are talking Apocrypha…

No, it is not. Apocrypha and Deutherocanonicals are not the same thing. The Deuterocanonicals got their name because they were canonised, in the Church, at a later time than some other books.

This doesn’t mean they are lesser. We also have New Testament Deuterocsnonicals - books canonised later than others - such as Hebrews, James, the Letters of John and Peter, Jude, and Revelation.

As Lutherans, we wouldn’t set doctrine by it…

Why not? The Deuterocanonicals are part of Scripture, just as much as Genesis, Proverbs or the Gospel of Matthew.

I haven’t read the entire Book of Concord, but this is one of the times I rejoice in my Church’s decision to reject most of it. In my mind I find it hard to see the justification of, on the one hand, rejecting that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture on the same level as, say, Isaiah, and, on the other hand, claiming to follow that which has been taught everywhere, always, and by all.

 

[benhur]

Jesus talked to dead saints in heaven while he was on earth in Matt 17.

Saints are not dead. We are not sure Moses was in heaven or Sheol/Paradise. Jesus spoke with them on the mount and no where else that we are told.
Scripture does not reveal what the saints knew or did not know.

 

[Jubilarian]

Saints are not dead. We are not sure Moses was in heaven or Sheol/Paradise. Jesus spoke with them on the mount and no where else that we are told.
Scripture does not reveal what the saints knew or did not know.

The scriptures certainly reveal what the saints knew, you are wrong. In Luke 9:30-31 we read, "And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Does that sound like they didn’t know what was going on, on earth? In addition, why does it matter if Moses and Elijah are in Sheol or Paradise? They were in the after life, period.

And since when does an incident in scripture have to occur more than once to make a point?
Jesus gave instructions on the Lord’s pray once, does that mean it doesn’t count?

 

[benhur]

The scriptures certainly reveal what the saints knew, you are wrong. In Luke 9:30-31 we read, "And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Does that sound like they didn’t know what was going on, on earth?

I stand corrected . Thank you. They knew what was going on. After all, they prophesied of such things even while on earth, representatives of both the law and prophets. They spoke of His “Exodus”

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t at all deny tradition. As an American Anglican (aka Episcopalian), I don’t really think of myself as Protestant, but more like a Catholic not under the authority of Rome.

 

[KjetilK]

I don’t at all deny tradition. As an American Anglican (aka Episcopalian), I don’t really think of myself as Protestant, but more like a Catholic not under the authority of Rome.

Just a heads up. Your point is what I, as a (High Church) Lutheran priest, in the episcopally governed Church of Norway, has tried to tell Jubilarian, who started this thread. But instead of accepting my claim not to be a Protestant, at least not in the sense it now has,* Jubilarian said this: “Any Christian PROTESTING the Catholic Church is a PROTEST-TANT. Don’t run from it.”

I have no problem with the original meaning of the word ‘Protestant,’ i.e. those protesting the Holy Roman Empire’s restrictions on the religious activity of Evangelical* (Lutheran) Churches. (See JonNC’s post earlier in the thread.) But since the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists to restrict any religious activity, and since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t enforce any such restrictions, I am NOT a Protestant.**

But that is NOT how Jubilarian uses it. First, he defined ‘Protestant’ as ‘protesting the [Roman] Catholic Church,’ which is NOT the historical usage of the word, and now he uses it to denote any Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (regardless, it seems, of their level of ‘protest’), which means that the word has become so broad it is totally useless.

• Today it is used mostly by modern Evangelicals, who should not be confused by the European Evangelicals. The latter are mostly (High Church) Lutherans, or ‘Evangelical Catholics,’ which is what they called, and still call, themselves.

** Interestingly the British Roman Catholics of the 16th and 17th century could be seen as ‘Protestants’ in this historical sense. They did protest the British government’s restrictions on their religious activity. ‘Protestant’ is just an alternative way to write ‘protester.’

 

[JonNC]

No, it is not. Apocrypha and Deutherocanonicals are not the same thing. The Deuterocanonicals got their name because they were canonised, in the Church, at a later time than some other books.

This doesn’t mean they are lesser. We also have New Testament Deuterocsnonicals - books canonised later than others - such as Hebrews, James, the Letters of John and Peter, Jude, and Revelation.

Why not? The Deuterocanonicals are part of Scripture, just as much as Genesis, Proverbs or the Gospel of Matthew.

I haven’t read the entire Book of Concord, but this is one of the times I rejoice in my Church’s decision to reject most of it. In my mind I find it hard to see the justification of, on the one hand, rejecting that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture on the same level as, say, Isaiah, and, on the other hand, claiming to follow that which has been taught everywhere, always, and by all.

Its not in the BofC. There is no comment regarding a set canon there. It is simply the practice in our part of the Lutheran tradition to set care when considering the historically disputed books. And the DC’s are historically disputed, long before Luther and Cajetan.
OTOH, I’ve read the DC’s and Luther’s commentaries, and I’m not convinced by his arguments there that they should be considered secondary, as I read nothing in them that seemed contradictory to the rest of scripture.

Jon